“Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Now, I own a house, work as a software developer and get paid nearly stupid amounts of money.
Luck, a few good people (Brian, we still appreciate the $100!), and a natural affinity for computers are all that separate me from working those same minimum wage jobs and living hand to mouth.
However, having crossed that line in both directions has also made me aware that even with all of that, I'm still only a few months of unemployment away from being homeless again. I only hope that the startup I work for doesn't go under, and that if it does I can find another good paying job.
It's not just about personal stories.
Falcolas might not have been able to borrow $100, and would likely have ended up somewhere very different.
And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer.
You might think 'There are others' - and you'd be right.
But the effects scale. If enough people don't get a break, opportunities shrink across the landscape.
Not only the startup economy.
Brief thought experiment:
Imagine two people. Person A is a car mechanic. Person B is a software developer. Neither are employed but both are more skilled and likely more efficient than each other in their respective fields.
Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy it, but because they can't afford to pay each other.
This is a vast oversimplification (in this case, they could just directly barter and exchange no funds, or even if they did exchange funds $50 would flow one way and right back the other).
But the economy dies with the middle class. When no-one can afford to partake in services, we all suffer.
If they don't have dollars, they can pay each other in IOUs (which aren't divisible, but otherwise would work fine).
Affordability is about more than simply having some means to pay, though.
I often struggle to find a word that fits well here.
The dictionary defines afford to mean: 'to be able to do, manage, or bear without serious consequence or adverse effect'.
By that standard, some people who can't afford to go to college actually do. The means are available via loans, but there are serious consequences and they will be saddled with large amounts of debt. So what's the term for that?
I don't think 'afford' as a proxy for 'strictly possible' is very useful and I'd be glad to hear of an alternative.
This description of it by P.J. O'Rourke in "Eat the Rich" uses the respective talents of John Grisham and Courtney Love to explain it.
http://appliedabstractions.com/2004/11/30/ricardo-explained-...
I'm glad that you found an excuse not to violate the laws of nature, but that doesn't mean you don't need a reason. It means you already have one.
Not everything in life is under our control.
>Not everything in life is under our control.
Who cares!? Are you going to spend your time repeating trivially useless facts? You have said nothing at all that allows you to distinguish between what can and can't be controlled. 'Naturalness' isn't it, for what should be obvious reasons.
You do not know what is under your control until you try to control it.
I disagree. Man-made phenomena can all be fought and reversed (so it's worth trying), but not all natural ones can (so it can be worth trying to fight them, but one must also know when to give up).
This started with the statement "Social inequality without serving a conscious purpose", which implies (or at least that's how I interpreted it) that social inequality is some man-made phenomenon, and we'd all be equal if not for some evil overlords "keeping us down". I disagree with this theory.
Do others feel that no injustice exists in a situation where comfortable living and hopeless suffering are deemed products by luck?
Is it a disagreement that the GP's situation is based on luck (I never made that claim, GP did)?
Is it disagreement that people living comfortably based on self-admitted luck should concern themselves with those who perpetually suffer because they weren't as lucky?
Something else I'm oblivious to?
But then again, I'm terrible at sensing the subtext of other people's written words, so I ended up simply taking the question at its face value.
And I do that by simply doing the same things which were done for me. When I can afford to, I will freely give money to someone who is down on their luck (I've paid many a utility bill these past few years). I recommend people for jobs and guide them on getting the skills which will pay. I open my house to people who need it, letting them stay as long as necessary to get back on their feet.
It's not much, but it's something (and more importantly, it's something I actually have the power to do). And in my limited experience, it's helped.
Relevant quotes from the abstract:
Adults with lower family income at age 9 exhibited reduced ventrolateral and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity and failure to suppress amygdala activation during effortful regulation of negative emotion at age 24. ... The findings demonstrate the significance of childhood chronic stress exposures in predicting neural outcomes during emotion regulation in adults who grew up in poverty.
I'm not going to add anything meaningful about "breaking a bone" and universal healthcare, but when it comes to a car breaking down there's something to be said about how the American car-culture and its suburban-centered development is actively at work against America's poor people.
Not sure how that can be remedied in the short- to medium-term, but something needs to change about how urban planning is done.
As she has explained to me, urban planning (esp. in denser cities) is very much about increasing density, improving transportation options (e.g., walk/bike/transit), and ensuring neighborhood access to essential services (groceries, medical care, etc.). Equity is a huge concern for most planners as well.
The problem isn't so much "improving urban planning" as "making elected officials and taxpayers listen to what the planners are saying".
Ghettos are cheaper than suburbia but the trade off is less security and selling your kids future down the toilet.
> We’re aware that we are not “having kids”, we’re “breeding”. We have kids for much the same reasons that I imagine rich people do. Urge to propagate and all. Nobody likes poor people procreating, but they judge abortion even harder.
#Edit: I'd honestly like to hear some comments/feedback about the individuals that disagree with what I said above.
I'm not saying it's rational by any means, I'm just pointing out things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#mediaviewer/File:... This pictures explain it nicely. But really, there are a lot of other reasons, scientific literature has a lot to say about that. Don't do it your 30s, do it in your 20s.
Additionally, having read a bit of history recently[1][2] it seems there never has been a time where economic certainty, or any certainty about the future, was actually a thing for the majority of people on the planet, throughout all time.
Personal anecdote: I had said this very same thing for years until I had my first child. Interesting how perspectives.
1. The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined - Steven Pinker
2. Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World - Deirdre N. McCloskey
Edit: I didn't downvote you, by the way.
If you ask a person why they did it they often can't explain it in a reasonable way. To them it just feels like the correct decision, because evolution makes having offspring very desirable. Same reason why most of the things that taste delicious are the things you need most for survival (energy from food).
I have a hard time believing this statement. I know that being poor in the US is very tough, but the author's statement that it is impossible to go from being poor to not-poor doesn't ring true. For example, doesn't the author expect that the full time school they are doing is going to have some financial payoff in the future?
I'm just pointing that people aren't (always) rational and I was referencing a quote that may give you a clue as to why. Look at bdcravens comment as well.
These are two very different things, and mixing them together leads to confusion and error.
Or spend the money today on some burgers and a DVD for the kids. Get hugs and kisses and a full belly.
Poor people aren't stupid. You seem to think they are. She may go to school, get qualified but it's a huge gamble. And if something happens that means she has to miss school and doesn't pass the exams, that's a lot of wasted money. You have to be in a place where a 3 year plan is achievable. Gambling time and money on self education takes a lot of mental effort. Every day you have to be prepared to be knackered, poor, time deprive your kids, all for the gamble that in the future even with the qualification you'll get a better job.
What's the point? Who the hell cares.
That is ridiculous. If you hadn't saved and you had the car crash, then you would have been carless. Instead you were able to use to car
>Poor people aren't stupid. You seem to think they are. Why do you think that I think poor people are stupid? Do I literally have to agree with everything any poor person says to avoid this kind of cheap shot?
I agree that the payoff from education may be a gamble, but it was just an example of the many ways people can become better off.
I'll go much farther than you did and say defeatism is for losers. I don't mean that as a judgement, but as a statement of fact. You'll never get ahead when you don't see a point. Life is mostly a mental game.
A serious problem for a lot of people (beyond the poor) is that they spend far more cognitive time thinking about how to justify and feel good about their circumstances and decisions than how to improve them. Change comes from within and change is hard.
And defeatism may well be unreasonable, but who claimed otherwise? That it's bad is obvious, and stating it helps nobody. Even the author of the article knows it's bad and wrong but does it anyway.
Actions affect emotion. Just like the action of smiling itself has been proven to make you happier, taking steps to make your life better will impact your feelings about it.
I feel like there's a lack of explanation on "effort" that a person can spend. Like why a person will be able to do some amount of work but then get incredibly bogged down and not feel like doing more, even though they aren't really "tired".
A) The author is describing the psychology of poverty, how people develop a self-fulfilling belief that it is impossible to escape poverty. Poor people are making objectively bad decisions because they are unable to do otherwise due to the psychological impact of poverty. By failing to understand this, I show that I am callous and unsympathetic.
B) The author is describing the external difficulties of escaping poverty, in which various mechanisms make it extremely hard to escape poverty no matter what actions a person takes. By failing to acknowledge this reality, I am showing that I am callous and unsympathetic.
That knowledge that this "feeling" is, to some extent, self-reinforcing, does not diminish its importance, or offer any easy solutions - anything along the lines of telling people to "just get on with things" isn't really constructive.
Like you say, if people do feel like this then it's important to understand it. But there is a big difference politically between saying poor people feel unable to improve their situation, and that poor people actually are unable to improve their situation.
When the feeling of hopelessness cripples you into a self-fulfilling prophecy, the two are one and the same.
> Fine, but then the author is using an exaggerated and wrong feeling to emphasize this point, even though reality might not be that bad.
To me, this statement is synonymous with the "telling people to "just get on with things"" that I was suggesting was not very helpful in my previous post. The key issue is that the things that compound her already difficult situation are not things that are easily quantified like the money in her bank account, but more intangible things like how she feels every day. These things are difficult to measure and so easy to dismiss, but that doesn't make them less significant for the people who experience them.
edit: removed a word
I'm not saying that we should tell poor people to "just get over it". I'm saying that there is a very real difference between what is objectively true, and what some poor people feel to be true[1]. If we confuse these two, it's not possible to have a sensible discussion on the matter. I'm all for helping people out by trying to alleviate the psychological impact of poverty. Personally I favor European/Australian/NZ/Canada style welfare states, it seems like a proven approach.
[1] And the "self fulfilling prophecy" doesn't remove this difference, because there is still a difference between society denying people opportunities directly, and people not taking opportunities that they have because of some self-fulfilling belief.
EDIT: added footnote
As a citizen of one of those countries, hearing such a statement sounds very much like what I would imagine saying "Personally I favour American/Russian/Chinese/Indian style capitalism, it seems like a proven approach" would sound like to a resident of one of those countries.
The counterpoint I would offer to your statement about the "left wing" analysis of such situations is that, to use similarly broad strokes, the "right" has a tendency, quite strong at times, to completely dismiss the importance, or even existence, of "self-fulfilling beliefs", and correspondingly prescribes exactly the kind of "just get on with it" solutions that I mentioned before. Their political opponents, still observing the problem, are then bound to highlight that, given that the problem does still exist, and that obvious direct causes can be ruled out (assuming they can), then the "self-fulfilling beliefs" must be important.
Although you seem to hold similar opinions to me regarding the importance of understanding these effects and addressing them if they are found to be important, I would suggest that your instincts appear to question whether or not these effects even exist at all. Taking your first paragraph:
> It is very typical on the left for a personal account of the experience and psychology of being X to also be a political argument. Even if the author didn't intend it that way, it's certainly being used in the context of a political argument now. Note the replies by monk_e_boy and rayiner who take the statement on face value and argue that the payoff to education/savings is very small for poor people.
This, to me, looks like an implicit rejection of the importance of these "self-fulfilling effects". By claiming it is political, or is being used in a political way, you appear to be suggesting that her experience is either not real, or is unrepresentative, and is simply being isolated to gain traction for some policy or other. Most importantly, this suggestion appears to be made on the basis that it is unquantifiable experience, rather than from the actual content.
Rejecting anecdotal claims is unscientific is reasonable, and you grant that she may not be directly making "claims" herself. What I would caution against is your (apparent) assumption that the use of her experience to highlight an issue (by the editors of the guardian) can be quite safely rejected simply by virtue of the fact that her experience is difficult to quantify. The most appropriate response, it seems to me, is to demand rigorous research on the subject. If, however, I have misunderstood you, and this wasn't your intention, then please accept my apology in advance.
Today I'm a developer and am upper middle-class, some years making what my dad made in 10-15 years.
That said, I still fight feelings of being poor. It's a mindset, not a bank account balance.
This is very true. Even though I have money these days, I still own very little. I just don't recognize the need to own anything valuable, have no desire to own property, nor feel the need to eat at a fine restaurant. Even though I can afford Starbucks with no problems, I still feel like it is an "expensive" place.
The last time I made a lot of money, I went off the deep end, told myself I don't deserve it, and blew all of my success. Growing up around the mantra "The root of all evil is money" had a long-term effect on me and generated a ton of issues that I wasn't prepared to face the first time around. I feel like I'm over those issues now, but it always lurks and I feel like I'm standing on the edge of an icy cliff back into the world of poverty.
Money is a-moral. It has no implicit moral value, regardless of quantity. It's just a tool. When you put it into the hands of a person, then it takes on a kind of life.
Think about bricks. Let's say you have a brick. You can throw it through a window, perhaps to scare / hurt / burglarize someone. You can also build a shelter for domestic violence victims. The brick couldn't care less - it's just a brick. What matters is when it's put into the hands of a human, and what that person does with it.
As a tool, money simply magnifies what you already are. If you're a greedy, selfish jerk, and you get a bunch of money, you're going to be a colossal greedy, selfish jerk, and the world will be worse for it. The world has plenty of such people. If you're humble, caring, and generous, and you get a bunch of money, you're going to be what people call a philanthropist, and the world will be better for it. The world also has plenty of these people. In both cases, the money is immaterial, and what's good / evil is the actions taken by the person using the money.
There are plenty of greedy people without money, and with. There are plenty of generous people with money, and without. Money isn't the dominant factor in how people behave; it only brings out more of what's already in their nature.
As an aside, the same is true for all tools. Computers, guns, hammers, and cars can be used for good or bad purposes [2]; it's the person wielding them which makes the difference.
As to what you do with money? Well of course, you have to take care of your own basic needs. There's nothing wrong with that. Afterward? If you want to make the world a better place, then money makes you more empowered to do so. It might mean paying someone's utility bill or letting them stay with you while they get back on their feet. It might mean investing in the local homeless shelter, or volunteering your time at a soup kitchen. It's up to you. With creativity, there's no end to the ways you can help the world ... but you can only do so if you have the ability to help, and having money can absolutely be part of that.
There are definitely some toxic notions in our culture about money ... that someone with it must be "bad" whereas someone without it must be "good" ... but it's just not true. It's catchy, and with a little envy it's easy to believe it and then rationalize taking rich people's money "just because" (even moreso if you're led to believe some of that is going to come your direction).
Still doesn't make it true. You wouldn't see someone with a bunch of bricks and assume something about their character, and you wouldn't see someone with no bricks and make assumptions about theirs, either. It's all just tools ... it's the person (their heart, their character, their actions) which lead to good or evil.
----------------------------------------
[1] for the record, the phrase "money is the root of all evil" is a fudge of an old English, King-James-Bible translation which states "for the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil". In other words, greed leads to evil. For ideological reasons the phrase has been adjusted and misappropriated into the incorrect one - "money is the root of all evil" - we hear these days, but that doesn't make it true.
[2] that's right everybody, I said it. Guns do not kill people, any more than cars cause wrecks, keyboards make software bugs, pencils make wrong answers, or forks make people obese. Now cue the usual reactions ...
Second, I don't necessarily accept the argument that "people who go to college make more money" proves that "college is a good investment". For example, this study found that direct transfer of assets and emulation of behaviors exhibited by wealthy parents had a much stronger contribution to the lifetime earnings of children than education level: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9314
Lastly, the article you posted makes it very clear that the earnings gap for Latinos and African Americans is significant (20% or more) and pervasive no matter what level of education they attain.
The point is simply that the article tells us something about how the benefits of education vary with socioeconomic status, even though it doesn't directly measure it. People might also be interested in the direct effect of race too, even though no one brought it up so far.
>Second, I don't necessarily accept the argument that "people who go to college make more money" proves that "college is a good investment". For example, this study found that direct transfer of assets and emulation of behaviors exhibited by wealthy parents had a much stronger contribution to the lifetime earnings of children than education level: http://www.nber.org/papers/w9314
I'm very familiar with this literature, I just any studies at hand that correct for this effect. Also, unless I missed it in the body of the article, the article is not measuring the effect of education per se, but the how much education accounts for the elasticity between wealth of parents and wealth of children (i.e. to what extent education explains this effect). I know the results I showed aren't conclusive, they are just all I have on hand. I'm happy to see more evidence on the payoff to education for low SES groups.
>Lastly, the article you posted makes it very clear that the earnings gap for Latinos and African Americans is significant (20% or more) and pervasive no matter what level of education they attain. Yes, but I don't think this really changes the argument.
The author is explaining to you the self-perpetuating cycle and psychology that keeps poor people poor, despite what they feel are their best efforts.
As a person who has struggled with poverty for decades, I find your underlying dismissal of the article as "nah, it's not that bad" based on technical nitpicking pretty offensive.
They are basically agreeing with my interpretation of the statement (although they think that the statement, interpreted this way, is true).
Socio-economic mobility in the united states is low, and falling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_...
Or read Peter Gosselin's book _High Wire_ http://www.amazon.com/High-Wire-Precarious-Financial-America...
The thesis is that what we've seen over the last 30 years -- from pensions, to unemployment, to education -- is a broad shifting of who bears risk from the government/populace as a whole to individuals.
And this cuts both ways; I definitely know harvard legacy admits who sure as hell didn't get there on merit. And a startup founder who could start his ad company because his parents could loan him $500k without it being a financial crisis if they didn't get it back, and who used his company to run advertising for their chain of auto dealerships. So it's obviously quite possible to start a company without personal wealth, or familial wealth, but it's a hell of a lot easier with it. See, also, eg Bill Gates.
Anyway - horrible image. But it does strike me as the likely way forward for providing affordable health care. I suspect that many of the inefficiencies in our delivery of healthcare are around throughputs at diagnosis (hard to fix) at preperTion and delivery of the non drug intervention.
In other words, stop persuading people to go individually for flu jabs, just tell everyone there will be a fair outside Sainsburys.
It was rough, but definitely not hopeless. Not all of the decisions we made were good (lol, by a long ways), but enough of them were.
I never expected to be poor forever, which makes a huge difference. There were spans of depression where I felt like giving in and just accepting my lot in life, but punched through and kept grinding. Thankful for that.
That actually sounds pretty great. You covered your necessities and had a few luxuries. Heck, I make an order of magnitude more than minimum wage, but my life doesn't sound much more glamorous than that.
If poor people are able to afford food, housing, and small luxuries (cigarettes), is life really so bad?
You also probably don't have to worry about getting sick or injured (health insurance and sick leave are basically assumed in most careers that pay >$100k/year), getting access to money (whether savings or credit) for emergencies, or being able to support a loved one when they have problems.
There's nothing "glamorous" about scraping by month to month, working an hourly job with no benefits or paid leave, or having to lie to get access to social services to support your family. It might not be as bad as living in medieval-era poverty, but it's still miles away from your six-figure professional lifestyle.
Life can be (and often is!) fine day-to-day when you're poor, but the complete lack of an effective safety net means the difference between "doing okay" and "living on the street with no options" is razor-thin.
My point was simply that my life generally doesn't seem much/any better than joelhooks's ostensibly "poor" life.
I might have health insurance, but I haven't used it once. Even though I have sick leave at work, I'd probably never take it (preferring to work remotely).
I guess my main point is that we shouldn't lose sight of the advances which centuries of development have brought us. An order of magnitude income differential no longer connotes an order of magnitude difference in lifestyle. At least for young single men, it seems like there's almost no difference in lifestyle based on salary.
Sure, sitting around getting loaded smoking cigarettes is Fun. This is better. A lot better.
I personally have very clear memories of the years where I worried constantly about finding and keeping enough work to pay rent, left problems with my health unaddressed because I couldn't afford to fix them, and stayed in a bad relationship because my partner had a place to me to stay and a car I could take to job interviews.
If you had asked me then I would have said my life was fine b/c I had friends, plenty of cheap beer, and didn't really know any better. Now that I'm also solidly in the middle class and can afford luxuries like an entire house I share with just my wife, regular meals out, and leisure travel I would describe those years as "strained" and "challenging" at best.
I guess maybe I'm just not allocating my money intelligently, but it really doesn't feel like my life is much better than "poor" young people.
My university friends who survive on a $4000/semester stipend don't seem any less happy or contented than me. If anything, more so.
> much more stability and confidence you have as a product of your income.
Admittedly, I don't really worry about the effect of losing my job. I could probably sustain myself for a few years off my savings.
But, on the flip side, having a "professional" job is also much more all-encompassing. I doubt people working at McDonalds frequently wake up with thoughts about new strategic directions and methods for flipping burgers, but I am. In exchange for the stability which a high salary brings, I'm always thinking about work.
Also, the concept of being able to sustain your current lifestyle for a few years on your savings alone makes you sound like you're from another planet to someone making minimum wage with the savings and benefits that entails. It also doesn't appear to jive with your earlier statement about managing your money in such a way that your day to day finances would be in any way similar to someone earning $10 hourly. Where I come from, having enough money for beer and weed might mean you've got $20 to your name, not a savings account with enough for rent and expenses for the next 2 years.
Edit:
Your friends at university might appear to have a fairly similar lifestyle to yours on the measly sum of $4000 per semester given the fact that university life generally comes accompanied by prepaid meal plans, health insurance, counselling, housing, on campus services and student discounts. Such amenities are a far off dream to those below the poverty line.
I never claimed my finances were similar to someone earning $10/hour. Just my lifestyle. (The fact that I don't have much to spend money on is part of the reason I've managed to accumulate extensive savings.)
> university life generally comes accompanied by prepaid meal plans, health insurance, counselling, housing, on campus services and student discounts
They do have housing taken care of, but that $4000 is used for meals. While those fringe benefits are tangible, I don't think they make a major lifestyle difference considering that most never use health or counseling services
Wealth is relative, but progress is not.
What happens when you get old? What happens why somebody else needs your help? What happens if you have a good idea and nobody to listen to it?
By definition luxuries are not necessities. If people can do without them fine (millions of people don't drink or smoke), they are not necessities.
> They are not a recipe for a good life unless you are pacified by trite platitudes.
Then what is, which money could buy? I make a lot more money than that, but my life doesn't sound any better.
I daresay, it's a necessity for human beings to experience less than complete absence of all pleasures in life. Many of the things described as "small luxuries" are individually forgoable, sure, but for one to live their life denying themselves the satisfaction of any expense anyone else might do without, experiencing nothing but the bare toil and drudgery required for physical survival, is a kind of mental torture no one should be expected to bear.
If a drink now and then (or "junk food" instead, or movies, or videogames instead, or nice clothes, or this, or that, or the other thing, whatever the particular indulgences are that floats one boat) is what it takes to feel like a proper human being, it's worth it. Poor people like the same things anyone likes, and I cast no aspersions on their allowing themselves joy.
(Also, yes, millions of people don't smoke, but at the same time, millions of people wish no longer to smoke but have great difficulty quitting, because it is physically addictive (rather famously), and though one might say no one should ever have picked up the habit in the first place, it's not uncommon for perfectly fine people to have made suboptimal decisions at at least one point in their life...)
The physical addiction to nicotine is weak and lasts only a few weeks after stopping smoking.
The psychological addiction is very strong and that lasts much longer.
I disagree - I think poor people are indeed capable of making good decisions and planning long-term - but what other point are you supposed to take away from her article?
>And honestly, I wouldn’t even mind the degradations of my work life so much if the privileged and powerful were honest about it. If they just admitted that this is simply impossible.
>I’m not saying that someone doesn’t have to scrub the toilets around here. All I’m saying is that maybe instead of being grossed out by the very idea of toilets, you could thank the people doing the cleaning, because if not for them, you’d have to do it your damn self.
As a society, we make poverty into an inescapable and self-reinforcing cycle by attaching such a large stigma to it. The working poor are performing the work necessary to prop up the rest of our civilization while we spit on them for holding that station. We need to admit that that attitude is a problem and then we need to work to change it.
Any honest work can be rewarding in itself but only so long as it is recognized as honest and valuable work. Part of that recognition must be to receive fair compensation in the form of a living wage that covers expenses and allows for saving money towards the future but it also must include respect from the people that benefit by your services.
If we all had to invest our energies in producing, packaging, and preparing every morsel of food that passed our lips, cleaning and maintaining every part of our homes, workplaces, and vehicles, or have a hand in the creation or maintenance of any of the thousand other parts of our daily lives that must all exist and function in perfect order for us to simply get on with it, we'd all be less able to perform the other activities required for the continuance of our society in its present state.
This is simple division of labour, it's been with us since we chipped our first flint. The concept is a simple one: either we all survive or none of us survive. If we all invest even a little bit of effort in keeping that maxim at the front of our minds I believe we really can have a better world tomorrow and the day after that. It's only when you begin seeing people as expendable extras, just another replaceable part, that things begin to fall apart. We're all human, we all deserve a fair chance, and a second one, so help someone, say thank you, and stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.
Something else that I've heard from other people/read about is how basically it takes money to save money.
For instance, most of us have bank accounts that don't charge any monthly fee and we're fine having to keep a minimum of $25 or so in the account. But if you're poor, that's a lot of money to keep locked up, which is why my guess is that a lot of people don't have bank accounts. They then have to cash their checks at places that take a good sized bite out of each pay check. People living pay check to pay check also likely can't wait the few days it takes for a bank to clear checks.
It seems like there's got to be a better way of paying people who don't have a bank account so that they can access the money right away and don't have to pay fees.
From what I've heard, you can be on food stamps/other assistance but if you cross a certain line in terms of income you can't qualify anymore, instead of gradually diminishing as one makes more.
I think it is called "cash". Turning a piece of paper (ie: a paycheque) into cash costs money and so does turning cash into a piece of paper (ie: a money order to pay rent or a utility bill). The banking system isn't free. It is much more profitable for the bank to prey on the poor who have no capital to offer up and who have no time to research their different banking options than it is for a bank to offer affordable services to low-income customers. Cash costs money to mint and print as well but that's hidden in seigniorage, taxes and inflation.
There are payroll cards (in lieu of cheques) for employees without bank accounts but, since the card issuer's true customer is the employer, they often hit employees with high fees for everything which end up costing more than a bank account would.
And yes, this is legal.
Yeah, that sort of crap needs to stop.
Also, we need to make it possible for average folks to become homeowners again. Also, this Obamacare crap: I am not a fan. Make it a government benefit or butt the hell out of whether or not I buy insurance. Thanks.
(In case you missed it, I have been homeless for three years and counting. I think I have more hope than this woman describes having, but I got that by walking away from my corporate job. I was able to do that because I was a military wife for a lot of years. So I still alimony and, in theory, access to free medical care. I still have things that are kind of a throw back to the 1950's way of life. Plus six years of college and other assets that have given me maneuvering room that most poor people lack.)
> Nobody likes poor people procreating, but they judge abortion even harder.
Don't go by what they say or how they act: from the decisions they make, it's clear that TPTB derive a great deal of value from the existence of vast and increasing numbers of poor people. Sure, they'd probably prefer to just impoverish more of the middle class, but the procreation of the poor works as well.
A car is a luxury. You got bikes, public transport, legs...
Cell phone is a luxury. Yes, even when you are looking for a job. Unless you can find a phone bill costing 2$/month, which I do.
Kids are a luxury. Not a right. Not a must have. Something you do when you can give them a decent living. Or you don't make them.
In this particular case, I'd argue that in many areas of the USA, cars are not a luxury, they're essential to moving around in the (to me) odd car-based infrastructure. Cell phones are also not a luxury, even here in Europe, which is why most homeless people have one. Kids are also not a luxury, because, as the author argues, context and basic human needs make it all but impossible for many (most) humans to keep from procreating, accidentally or otherwise.
I think it's intellectually lazy to apply your own situation to others without considering their particulars. Sure, there are times where you can conclude that someone 'deserves' their lot in life, but I've found much more often than not that this lot is a result of external factors, and concluding that it isn't is dangerous, arrogant, and easy.
Edit: I'd add that judging others in this manner often hinges on the assumption that willpower is somehow just a choice, where in actually there's a lot of evidence that it's not, at least in large part.
I've seen plenty people having money problems, even caused by health problems or accidents. The ones to get out of it are the ones that stop spending in materials everybody else claim are mandatory untill they get better.
And no, a cell phone is not mandatory. I lived without it for years.
And no, a car is not mandatory. If you are in an area requireing a car, move in another area. If you don't, you are making the explicit choice to spend more money for the luxury of staying here.
And no, accidental kids are not a good excuse when you got condom, pills, emergency pills and eventually abvortion. My GF had an abvortion once. It was terrible. Still better than having a family in distress.
Of course, you can always find extrems cases, like somebody raised in a very religious family, forced to keep a baby, or somebody with a love one to care in an hospital. But it's rare. I lived in Europe, Africa, travelled to Asia, America south and north. In the US or the West Europe, most people ARE, in fact, responsible for their debts.
I'm not talking about people in the street. These are a very different situation. I'm talking about this everyday poverty, that of course nobody choose to be in voluntarly, but are the results of life priorities directly imported from TV, magazins and supermarkets.
> And no, a cell phone is not mandatory. I lived without it for years.
You get very few job interviews if you don't have a phone or internet connection (which your phone can help you with).
> If you are in an area requireing a car, move in another area.
Yeah, why doesn't everyone just pack up and move to a strange city with no guarantee of a job - if you can even find one with a better transit system (if you have money for that transit system in the first place) or a bike (if you have money for a bike) or walking (if your job prospects are good enough that you can walk to your job - _if_ you can walk in the first place).
> And no, accidental kids are not a good excuse when you got condom, pills, emergency pills and eventually abvortion. My GF had an abvortion once. It was terrible. Still better than having a family in distress.
Ignoring what happens to people that had kids before they had any problems... Because we don't also have a reproductive health crisis with Republicans trying to do away with abortions and very, very expensive condoms, pills, and emergency pills? Do you know how much that costs? The time? The actual money? Plan B is around $50. Pills (if they even work for you, which they don't for many women) can skyrocket even with insurance - and often they require a doctor's visit too which costs even more. Condoms? Free if you can find a place that has them for free, which is the difficult part. Abortion? Don't even get me started on the timing and money required for that.
Yes, people are responsible for their debts. That doesn't mean we treat them like shit, and that doesn't mean we can't have some kind of safety net/help for them. Everyone fucks up at some point or another, or shit happens. It's just easier for more privileged people to deal with that without losing everything they have.
> I've seen plenty people having money problems, even caused by health problems or accidents. The ones to get out of it are the ones that stop spending in materials everybody else claim are mandatory untill they get better.
This may be a very American problem, but hahahaha. Have you tried going without anything but the bare minimum to pay off $xx,xxx in medical bills - if you're lucky - after negotiating it down? One single relatively minor health problem/accident - or a major one with decent insurance - might be doable. Good luck with anything else though.
My middle class father is probably currently googling to figure out how to divorce my mother because his medical bills have risen in the past year despite being on Medicare+the best supplemental insurance on the market. Chew on that. What now, staying with his caring partner of decades and leaving her, me+my partner, and future grandkids an inheritance that isn't in the negatives is a privilege now? We as a society won't be better off continuing this kind of bullshit.
I live in France, where gaz is more expensive, and jobs are harder to get. I traveled to the US, I got american friends. I don't think my comparison in unfair.
> You get very few job interviews if you don't have a phone or internet connection (which your phone can help you with).
As I said before, you got your friends with phones and internet connection. You can get free internet connection in many places anyway, and use phone box. But you do realize people had job before we had cellphones and internet ?
Use your social skills. We are a human society, we are supposed to help each others. You are not alone.
> Yeah, why doesn't everyone just pack up and move to a strange city with no guarantee of a job
Yes you can. It's not the big deal everybody says it is. I changed countried. I changed language. Again, it beats staying in a place you can't afford. This idea you should die where you are born is not sane.
> if you can even find one with a better transit system (if you have money for that transit system in the first place) or a bike (if you have money for a bike)
You are talking extrem case. If you can afford 2 kids but not a $20 second hand bike (i Had many), you choose a very, very difficult life. The lady here has TWO kids. You can say she didn't choose the first one, but the second ?
> or walking (if your job prospects are good enough that you can walk to your job - _if_ you can walk in the first place).
Again, extrem case. Be honest, most people in debt are not legless.
> And no, accidental kids are not a good excuse when you got condom, pills, emergency pills and eventually abvortion. My GF had an abvortion once. It was terrible. Still better than having a family in distress.
> Ignoring what happens to people that had kids before they had any problems...
Again, you chose to have kids without creating any kind of buffer in case you have problems. It should not be done. People have kids like it's the "ok thing to do when you are in your 2O'". No, it's not. We are overpopulated, times are hard. Don't make kids until you are sure you can sustain them in the next 20 years, including if you have problems. Your society don't need more kids. Kids are a luxury. I understand you want to have them, but if you do, then get in trouble, you are responsible.
> Because we don't also have a reproductive health crisis with Republicans trying to do away with abortions and very, very expensive condoms, pills, and emergency pills?
Try is the proper word here. Cause last time I check, you can get condom for free very easily in any city.
> Do you know how much that costs? The time? The actual money? Plan B is around $50.
Yes, and it's not supposed to happens often. Twice in your life, $100. If more, again, you are responsible. I think $100 on 20 years is ok.
> Pills (if they even work for you, which they don't for many women) can skyrocket even with insurance - and often they require a doctor's visit too which costs even more.
Yes, that's expensive in the US and not in france. Goes for condom.
> Condoms? Free if you can find a place that has them for free, which is the difficult part.
Difficult ? Try most universities. Done.
> Abortion? Don't even get me started on the timing and money required for that.
It happens once in a while to one out 100 persons. Provided it happens to, and you already got not enough money to pay for it, and you have nothing you can save on in the 3 month you got to deal with it (it's starting to be some kind of bad luck, but let'ts play with the idea).You got 3 months to deal with it and find the money. You got help, programs, friends, associations. It's true it's harder, but you can do it. You are responsible for it.
And again, you are picking extrem case. When I had the abvortion with my GF, she was an illegal immigrant with no job nor money and I was a broke from the mali war. We dealt with it. Stop finding excuses for everything.
> Yes, people are responsible for their debts. That doesn't mean we treat them like shit,
I don't. Saying "you are responsible for that" is not treating them like shit. Not careing is not treating them like shit. I just speak my mind about what I think of this situation. I think it's a human thing to do.
> and that doesn't mean we can't have some kind of safety net/help for them.
Indeed. Society should be organised to prevent this to happend, then help when it failed. It's not incompatible with my personnal feeling about it as an individual.
> Everyone fucks up at some point or another, or shit happens. It's just easier for more privileged people to deal with that without losing everything they have.
I think all the poeple that downvoted my were more privileged that I was.
> This may be a very American problem, but hahahaha. Have you tried going without anything but the bare minimum to pay off $xx,xxx in medical bills - if you're lucky - after negotiating it down? One single relatively minor health problem/accident - or a major one with decent insurance - might be doable. Good luck with anything else though.
Man, I had malaria in Africa without health insurance. Don't even try, you can't compare.
> My middle class father is probably currently googling to figure out how to divorce my mother because his medical bills have risen in the past year despite being on Medicare+the best supplemental insurance on the market.
How did he get that medical bill ? Accident ? Disease ? How much responsible of his health is he ? If he is not, how statistically likely his situation can apply to people in general ?but
< Chew on that. What now, staying with his caring partner of decades and leaving her, me+my partner, and future grandkids an inheritance that isn't in the negatives is a privilege now? We as a society won't be better off continuing this kind of bullshit.
Quite the contrary. As long as people don't realize consomming, having kids and living the life we live is not a good bet on the future, society will be in trouble.
I'm not against helping people. I want people to take responsibility for their situtation. You are not a aids infected legless orphan in Senegal.
It is unfair. France, and Europe in general, is completely different when it comes to public transport. France also happens to have a much, much more solid 'social infrastructure' for those who are poor. Surely you understand that especially when we talk about poverty, 'socialist' France is very different from the USA?
> As I said before, you got your friends with phones and internet connection. You can get free internet connection in many places anyway, and use phone box. But you do realize people had job before we had cellphones and internet ?
Some people, especially among the poor don't really have friends (or no 'active' or nearby ones). Many places don't have phone boxes or free internet. And cellphones and internet changed a lot of things, so comparing our current world to a pre-internet, pre-cellphone world doesn't really make sense.
> Use your social skills. We are a human society, we are supposed to help each others. You are not alone.
Sadly, many people are alone. And social skills are partly acquired and perhaps even, to a degree, a luxury. I've worked jobs with people who were so busy that they didn't have time to practice their social skills or maintain friendships. In fact, the article touches on this too!
> Yes you can. It's not the big deal everybody says it is. I changed countried. I changed language. Again, it beats staying in a place you can't afford. This idea you should die where you are born is not sane.
Again, you're applying your personal experience to others. That's unavoidable to a degree, but assigning judgment based on personal experience is, in my view, one of the primary causes of suffering in the world. If what you're saying is true, the only conclusion is that you are a smart, crafty person and all those people who 'choose' to live in favelas or poor areas are idiots. Surely you don't really believe that?
> Again, extrem case. Be honest, most people in debt are not legless.
I've spent some time in areas where walking is outright dangerous, and walking to the nearest 'job' location would take about half a day. This it not uncommon in the USA. Nobody would hire you in such a situation.
> Again, you chose to have kids without creating any kind of buffer in case you have problems. It should not be done. People have kids like it's the "ok thing to do when you are in your 2O'". No, it's not. We are overpopulated, times are hard. Don't make kids until you are sure you can sustain them in the next 20 years, including if you have problems. Your society don't need more kids. Kids are a luxury. I understand you want to have them, but if you do, then get in trouble, you are responsible.
I agree in the abstract, but even just consider people who are born and raised in a setting where having kids is considered a 'duty' of sorts, which is pretty common. You can blame their environment or belief system, but can you blame them for not having the means, time, capacity, or influential people who make them change their beliefs?
> > Condoms? Free if you can find a place that has them for free, which is the difficult part. > Difficult ? Try most universities. Done.
Did you even read the article?
> Indeed. Society should be organised to prevent this to happend, then help when it failed. It's not incompatible with my personnal feeling about it as an individual.
That's fair enough (seriously). I just hope you're open to the idea that perhaps you might be wrong in your assessment. Because, honestly, most of what you say scares me, as I think beliefs like yours play a significant role in the ever-increasing hardness, selfishness, and smugness of society in regards its weakest members. I'm not saying you play an active role in this, don't get me wrong, but beliefs like the ones you express seem very harmful to me (even if they were true, and I don't think they are).
> I think all the poeple that downvoted my were more privileged that I was.
I think you should not assume such things.
> I'm not against helping people. I want people to take responsibility for their situtation. You are not a aids infected legless orphan in Senegal.
And you are not the standard by which we judge everyone else. It is a good thing that we don't have legless aids-infected orphans 'here'. And the reason why we don't have those is not because our legless, aids-infected orphans or their parents have chosen to better themselves. The reason why we don't have those is in part because we realize that people are not in full control of their situation, and through education, social 'security' (of various types) and such, we can improve things.
Suffering is a relative thing. I do not want to diminish your hardships, but I also don't see the point in judging the poor in our society based on the level of poverty in other societies.
Let me switch gears for a bit, as I think I'm not too interested in further discussing these specifics. We might just disagree on them, and it might not be all that productive to continue down this line.
The main reason I'm engaging with you is that I'm honestly curious why you feel a strong need to react against this article in the first place. Isn't it a good thing that we're trying to understand the difficulties and plight of the poor in our society? Isn't that generally a benefit? Shouldn't we do more of that? You even seem to agree that a big part of the problem is structural and societal, rather than personal.
I really mean it when I say that I'd like to understand. Personally, I've noticed that spending time 'immersed' in poverty has often caused me to actually dislike the poor. To feel that they're stupid. Perhaps that is why you feel this way, or perhaps not. But what I also noticed is that as I spent more time away from outright poverty and the 'stupidity' that seems to be part of it, my views would mellow a bit more, and as I studied the underlying reasons and mechanisms my sympathy would come back.
Yes, a lot of poor people do infuriatingly stupid things. In fact, my time among 'the poor' has made me often feel like I'm dealing with particularly stubbornly stupid children. And the fact that there is no 'inherent' sympathy (by blood or other ties) makes is difficult to deal with that sometimes. But I try my hardest these days to realize that if it is in fact true that these poor are 'grown children', then it should lead me to sympathize more, not less. And it makes me respect all the more people who do manage to climb out of poverty despite this fact. And it makes me respect people who try to change things both up close and from a distance. Because dear lord is it easier to sympathize with the poor if you don't have to be around them!
But that said, the one thing that I think is not really a good idea in any way, is to openly rail against children for being children. That seems rather pointless.
(not that I'm saying the poor are 'stubborn, stupid, children', by the way. I don't know if they are, and I think it's mostly irrelevant to our sympathies)
That can of settles it. You are definitly right on this. I think i reacted emotionally because I felt i lived a lot of thing people are complaining about and I'm tired about hearing complain and want them to move their ass.
Unfortunately in the US, areas that don't require a car are so much more expensive that you would be paying more not to have a car.
A lot of the reactions to poverty that would fix it have an "activation energy" that may not be available.
We must also always remember that dualistic free will is an illusion.
That's obviously not what he is saying. Your doing way more than paraphrasing with that one.
Please tell me, how does one get a job in the US without a phone? And when one's job means being called in on short notice, how does one keep said job without having a phone?
The people who consider cell phones or internet access* as luxuries are stuck in the past, probably in the time they grew up. They also often speak of flat screen TVs, laptop computers, and even microwave ovens as being major luxuries compared to the "normal" equivalent. (Can you even still get a CRT TV?)
*It's extremely common for several poor people to share internet access, but at least one of them has to be paying for it.
Getting a boost mobile iphone 6 is ridiculous though.
Everything you've mentioned is how you avoid getting stuck in poverty - and all of what you've said seems like sound advice. But what happens when you've already made many mistakes, when you're already in debt and have children to take care of? I think that's where the author is starting from. She's trying to explain why she continued to make terrible choices when she became poor; not trying to justify her decisions, just trying to explain her faulty logic.
Ultimately, it would be better if we never had people get stuck in poverty. But what do we do once they're stuck? Should we just give up on them? Yeah, they fucked up. But if they feel like there's no way for them to get out of the hole they've dug, why should they even try?