Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

John Scalzi: Being Poor (2005)

whatever.scalzi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 262 posts

Re: John Scalzi: Being Poor (2005)

#241

Post by delazeur »

makomk wrote: post #238
delazeur wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also white, and I also grew up poor. I agree that many (though far from all) of the college students who talk about socioeconomic inequality are spoiled brats. However, you have misunderstood what "white privilege" means: it's not that your life has been easy, it's that the same situations would have been even harder if you had not been white.

In theory that's what it was originally intended to mean, but these days there seem to be an awful lot of people who think it does mean that if you're white your life has been easy and you brought every hardship on yourself. For instance, this tweet was doing the rounds a few days ago: "Imagine sucking so fucking bad that being a white guy is hard for you?"[1]. 26,000 retweets, no ambiguity whatsoever, no real pushba…

One sarcastic tweet from a random nobody is not a bellweather of leftist discourse. That's a weak joke, not social commentary.

Re: John Scalzi: Being Poor (2005)

#242

Post by sctb »

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #200

Being dumb is when you are poor and still breed like the animal you are, since a lot of these are about being a poor child or having a child while being poor. I don't say poor people don't deserve to have children. I am merely saying that children don't deserve to have poor parents so stop making them unless you can afford them a dignified life.

Please don't post uncivilly like this on Hacker News, we ban accounts that do.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: John Scalzi: Being Poor (2005)

#243

Post by sctb »

micahbright wrote: post #193
boyce wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah exactly. The not-poor should already be making contributions to the poor. Maybe we should have an elected body to manage the collection and distribution of these contributions. We could make it income related so those who can are able to contribute more. It could be universal so there's already a safety net there if people lose their jobs or become ill without paperwork or delays, also so that no one is poorer f…

Go fuck yourself

We've banned this account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post within the guidelines in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: John Scalzi: Being Poor (2005)

#244

Post by WalterBright »

dsr_ wrote: post #174
WalterBright wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious about the MIT thing. In the 70's, when I applied around, MIT and other top schools made it clear that if you were qualified to go there and accepted, they'd find a way to get the bill paid with some combination of scholarships, loans, and work.

Nearly all schools say that. The result is that, before you are old enough to vote or drink, you are encouraged to take on a debt larger than the total amount of money your parents have ever made in five years, a debt which is not subject to bankruptcy laws. If you make it out the other side of college with a bachelor's degree in a STEM field and an average job, it will still take you 21 years to pay it off. https://…

The 21 years cited in the article was for the average college graduate. If you're an MIT graduate in a STEM field, you are well above average. The person I replied to stated he was more than qualified to get into MIT, so I presume he'd have graduated above MIT average in a STEM field, which is not a disadvantaged position to be in.

Re: John Scalzi: Being Poor (2005)

#245

Post by WalterBright »

babesh wrote: post #220
maxerickson wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private schools with huge endowments actually do cover tuition for people with lower incomes. For example, Princeton covers 100% of tuition and room & board for family income below $65,000: https://admission.princeton.edu/cost-aid/how-princetons-aid-... MIT doesn't lay the income levels out so clearly but has a similar program: http://sfs.mit.edu/undergraduate-financial-aid/types-of-aid/... Public schools with huge e…

They started doing that relatively recently. Back then, it was a small grant, a job, and a large loan. Software didn't start outpacing other engineering professions' pay till the web boom. That was hindsight since I had the faintest clue what a major was. Choosing a major that results in a job versus one based on interests. Another decision was not to go to graduate school right afterwards. Poignant memory was of a p…

> Choosing a major that results in a job versus one based on interests.

When I attended Caltech in the 70s, it was commonplace for people in AY (Astronomy) to double major. When asked, the reason was always "AY for fun, and ME/EE/Whatever for a job."

I very much tilted my choice of classes towards what I thought would be most advantageous for my anticipated career. It never occurred to me that I was being deprived. It was just common sense.

Ironically, my career wound up in a field that had little to do with my studies :-)

Re: John Scalzi: Being Poor (2005)

#246

Post by StanislavPetrov »

arethuza wrote: post #146
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the reasons I was so impressed by this piece was that the author didn't mention any sort of identity, other than just being poor. Anyone who is poor, who has been poor, can identity with some or all of what was written here. Perspective is always important when considering any subject. The subject of "white privilege" when it comes to the debate over poverty and power is often misguided, just like any blanket…

What would happen to your friend if he was ill for a while and couldn't work? [NB I'm not from the US]

He would likely become homeless and possibly end up living on my couch.

Re: John Scalzi: Being Poor (2005)

#247

Post by shadowtree »

five_dollars wrote: post #236
shadowtree wrote: post #105

Being poor is living in an illegal cellar flat. Being poor is wiping off the mold from your shoes before putting them on. Being poor is buying second hand - unironically. Being poor is working harder than your peers. Being poor is not being able to fully relax, ever. Being poor is a chip on your shoulder, that never goes away. Being poor is a voice, deep within, saying nothing lasts, it is all an illusion, tomorrow y…

Minus the illegal flat(we had a dilapidated house), I could have written this exact thing. I hope you got out like I did.

I did. But the thing deep within never goes away.

Re: John Scalzi: Being Poor (2005)

#248

Post by [deleted] »

five_dollars wrote: post #236
shadowtree wrote: post #105

Being poor is living in an illegal cellar flat. Being poor is wiping off the mold from your shoes before putting them on. Being poor is buying second hand - unironically. Being poor is working harder than your peers. Being poor is not being able to fully relax, ever. Being poor is a chip on your shoulder, that never goes away. Being poor is a voice, deep within, saying nothing lasts, it is all an illusion, tomorrow y…

Minus the illegal flat(we had a dilapidated house), I could have written this exact thing. I hope you got out like I did.

[deleted]

Re: John Scalzi: Being Poor (2005)

#249

Post by emodendroket »

micheljones wrote: post #240
archagon wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, not at all? Racial superiority is not a concept in any reputable subfield of sociology. Privilege is not someone’s misguided opinion, but a concept founded on years of research. I am disturbed by this false equivalence.

I used to feel white guilt like you, but then I took an arrow to the reeeeeeeeeeeee.

Why are you posting this garbage?

Re: John Scalzi: Being Poor (2005)

#250

Post by emodendroket »

Rzor wrote: post #239
namlem wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White privilege is a bad term. Trevor Noah once said that in South Africa, they call it the "black tax," which I think is a much better term. It's not a benefit that's conferred onto white people, it's a cost that imposed on non-white people.

Isn't this a glass half full/half empty situation? Why the cost imposed on non-whites doesn't get to be called a benefit on whites since they are exempt from payment? I know I'm arguing semantics, but it is interesting the change in nomenclature.

Technically speaking, yes. But the emotional resonance is very different. If you don't believe me, try telling a libertarian that there is no real difference between giving someone a tax break and a subsidy and see how willing they are to even entertain your argument.
Post reply on HN