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

Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 216 posts

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#111

Post by forapurpose »

umvi wrote: post #80
post_break wrote: post #62

People cannot buy a phone outright. It's that bad. We're literally financing a $500-1000 device because they can't take the hit up front. Now I'm sure most people here could swing a phone tomorrow if they needed to say theirs was stolen, but you gotta think about how many people just can't. How about tires, there are places to rent tires. Financing a car? Common. 8 payments to put two front tires on your car? Seems i…

I'm a well off software developer. I've been using a $50 Nokia Lumia 520 for the past 3 years or so. When this one dies I'll likely "splurge" and buy a Nokia 2 ($100). That our I'll buy a Blu phone ($50). I would consider my neighbors poor. They have state-subsidized rent, for example. They use food stamps. They also smoke a pack a day each. All they need to do to buy a new phone is not smoke for 5 days. Not that it…

I wonder what they would say if they were posting on HN. Here, people who lack money are usually the 'other' about whom we talk, often in stereotypes. But these are a large number of individuals, each with their own widely varying needs and situations; the only way to learn about someone is to ask. Certainly, to understand me, I would not want anyone to rely on what my neighbors say.

The parent comment presumes knowing about these people, what they need, what they should do, and that it's your business to change them. That's a lot of judgment and on very little information.

I also am not a fan of the idea that people in poverty should spend no money on pleasures, that they must live as aesthetes their whole lives - almost as a sort of penance or to prove their dedication. These are people's lives; I hope they enjoy them and I'm certainly not the one to judge them for it.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#112

Post by gdix »

refurb wrote: post #108
xadhominemx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody's insecure about non-whites having the ability to vote Actually they are, and go so far as to pass laws specifically to suppress non-white votes https://twitter.com/haroldpollack/status/1051657219899617280

Wow! Talk about not providing context for that quote! The State's argument was voting hours were inconsistent across the state. The districts that offered additional voting opportunities, that other districts did not have , were predominantly African American and would vote Democratic. So their answer was to ban Sunday voting so that every district had the same window of opportunity to vote . One could argue that the…

Thank you for adding this context. Some people appear to be dead set on spreading misinformation on issues like this.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#113

Post by isoskeles »

jhayward wrote: post #58
isoskeles wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are student loans a basic need?

Education is a basic need. Inequality in access to education is an accelerator and maintainer of inequality.

Oh, I didn't know that fact. My mind has changed now. Going to a college to be taught by various professors is similar to food, water, and shelter. I'm convinced.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#114

Post by AlexB138 »

M0T0K0 wrote: post #91
AlexB138 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Bu-bu-bu-bullshit! " Is this really necessary, or the best way to make your point? It really takes away from an otherwise decent post.

I sympathize with RangerScience on this one; the schism between successful individuals who refuse to acknowledge society's role in aiding their success (subsidies, infrastructure, taxes, etc.), versus the less successful who continually get steamrolled over for the former's further advantage. Its obviously more complex than that, but I've met a few who don't help much in the former's depiction.

Sorry, I was unclear. I didn't post that to disagree with their point (though like you I think it's overly simplistic), I was disagreeing with the childish tone. That's not a way to have a productive conversation, or to be a good member of our community.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#115

Post by afpx »

pathseeker wrote: post #95
afpx wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a tough subject because it’s an emotional one, and lots of people do make knee jerk reactions. I know plenty of people who feel that they know the causes or consequences or solutions, but yet few of them seem to take a long, deep analysis. For example, the opinion that successful people make decisions X, Y, and Z and unsuccessful people don’t is a very attractive intuition. Yet, it’s very difficult to support…

>So, consider your observation that poor people are worse and rich people better (at making decisions). Did you read the part of the comment about people going broke who are high-income or receive windfalls? Poor money-management exists across all income bands and starting savings levels.

It’s not just about poor money management, but it’s too easy to reduce it to that.

Here are a couple examples.

Conventional wisdom 30 years ago said that a “good decision” was to graduate high school and get a manufacturing job. A “not so good decision” was to get a degree in computer science. There’s big a reason why ‘nerd’ back then was an offensive term. And, ‘only nerds’ went into compsci, and they didn’t even make much money (compared to, say, a business degree). But, look which decision was better after a few decades.

Another example is education, in general. In 1990, everyone was saying that college was the best thing a kid could do to get into the upper middle class. Data showed that any degree would significantly increase wealth over a lifetime. But, yet, just 15 years later, that decision wasn’t so great.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#116

Post by User23 »

jhayward wrote: post #53
User23 wrote: post #32

Poverty is not a disease. It's not a malady that can be treated or cured. It is a consequence of many factors, but above all it is primarily a consequence, not a cause. What causes poverty? Well like any other widespread social phenomenon, the causes are varied. Crime is an obvious one. Poor decision making is another. For example, a seemingly absurd 70% of windfall recipients go broke[1]. It's evident that the major…

> above all it is primarily a consequence, not a cause It absolutely is a cause, of many things, including more poverty. In the US, the largest determiner of a child's future socioeconomic status is her parent's wealth. Whether a disease model is the best one to use is arguable, but blanket denial that poverty is a primary cause of much social disruption, dysfunction, and lack of economic achievement is just nonsense…

Poverty is observably the consequence of social disruption, dysfunction, and lack of economic achievement. Wet streets do not cause rain. Germany for example had rampant poverty in the late 1940s and 1950s. That poverty didn't cause the war, it was caused by it. The Marshall plan helped speed up the recovery, but the real factor was the lack of punitive reparations and the industry of the German people. The same occurred in Japan.

I don't deny the possible existence of a negative feedback loop, but I don't consider it to be a settled matter either. It could be poverty causing more poverty, or it could just be that the original causes still obtain and thus poverty persists.

As for parental wealth, well you'd be hard-pressed to find any trait in a child that isn't statistically more likely when their parents possess it. Are we to address poverty by forcing people to procreate by lottery?

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#117

Post by michaelchisari »

umvi wrote: post #80
post_break wrote: post #62

People cannot buy a phone outright. It's that bad. We're literally financing a $500-1000 device because they can't take the hit up front. Now I'm sure most people here could swing a phone tomorrow if they needed to say theirs was stolen, but you gotta think about how many people just can't. How about tires, there are places to rent tires. Financing a car? Common. 8 payments to put two front tires on your car? Seems i…

I'm a well off software developer. I've been using a $50 Nokia Lumia 520 for the past 3 years or so. When this one dies I'll likely "splurge" and buy a Nokia 2 ($100). That our I'll buy a Blu phone ($50). I would consider my neighbors poor. They have state-subsidized rent, for example. They use food stamps. They also smoke a pack a day each. All they need to do to buy a new phone is not smoke for 5 days. Not that it…

Having an iPhone isn't inexplicable. You can finance or lease a phone for $30-$40 a month. And given the extraordinary advantages having a smartphone provides, it would be inexplicable if they did not do so.

Also, cigarettes are an appetite suppressant and in many places are cheaper than food. Food stamps are hardly comprehensive. Cheaper, that is, until it all catches up to you medically.

One thing I've learned in my years is how much cheaper life is when you make good money. I can buy healthy food. I can go to the doctor. I can buy shoes and jeans that last. I can properly fix things right when they break. And so on and so on. I pay more upfront to save a ton down the line.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#118

Post by DoreenMichele »

The risk of eviction, meanwhile, can be roughly measured by the percentage of people’s incomes that they spend on shelter each month. As of 2015, 17 percent of Americans spent half or more of their incomes on rent.

This is why we (here in the US) need to address housing. And I don't know what term to use. "Affordable housing" is the term I want to default to, but that gets misinterpreted by people and ends up being a pointless argument where we talk at cross purposes.

Historically, we had more housing appropriate for single people with not much income and childless couples with not much income, etc. We largely eliminated those options as we defaulted to a standardized expectation of a family home designed for a nuclear family and the footprint of such homes has more than doubled since the 1950s. Meanwhile, the average size of the actual nuclear family in the US has shrunk as we are having fewer kids and, simultaneously, our population has diversified away from the nuclear family towards more single people, childless couples, single parents, etc.

It also used to be more feasible to live without a car in the US. Now, we default to assuming you drive and own a car. That is in the process of changing, but it is still a pretty standard assumption baked into residential construction. Some US cities are starting to loosen parking requirements for rentals near transit stations, among other things. But we still mostly assume that you drive, you own your own car and you don't object overly much to driving fairly long distances for daily essentials like getting to work and doing the grocery shopping.

I don't have a term for the kind of housing that doesn't default to assuming you are part of a nuclear family with at least two cars. I don't know of anyone inventing terms for an alternate concept here.

But this is part of why we have terrible housing insecurity in the US. From what I gather, other countries tend to be better about having housing available that isn't a terrible burden to some large subsection of it's population -- ie everyone who isn't part of a nuclear family with either a very well paid head of household or a two career couple situation (and I say career, not job, to try to evoke something that probably pays better than minimum wage, has benefits, etc.).

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#119

Post by reidjs »

loco5niner wrote: post #102
gammateam wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to send the same emojis to communicate effectively and having blue bubbles is a lot more valuable than you might think If you are part of any professional membership or subscription to get you through life, then there are some similarities The point being that maybe they overspend on conspicuous consumption, using an iphone alone isnt an indicator in isolation. Who knows where the price limit is, but low i…

>Being able to send the same emojis to communicate effectively and having blue bubbles is a lot more valuable than you might think That's pretty hard to believe.

I thought so too for a long time, but I have met a woman who confused in me that she will not date men if they have an Android phone. I doubt she’s the only one.

Re: Poverty in America: Greater Than Statistics Indicate

#120

Post by post_break »

duck wrote: post #103
gammateam wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to send the same emojis to communicate effectively and having blue bubbles is a lot more valuable than you might think If you are part of any professional membership or subscription to get you through life, then there are some similarities The point being that maybe they overspend on conspicuous consumption, using an iphone alone isnt an indicator in isolation. Who knows where the price limit is, but low i…

What is a "blue bubble"?

He's referring to imessage vs sms. People put weight into if you have an iPhone or not. If you're not a blue bubble, you're a lesser class in america (TO SOME PEOPLE).
Post reply on HN