Live data from Hacker News

The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

theguardian.com

121–130 of 234 posts

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#121
I've been where this author has: selling off stuff and wondering how to pay rent, waiting in line for free food, donating blood plasma for $15, walking everywhere because it's cheaper than the bus, getting arrested for not paying child support. Nonetheless apparently I had it ass-backwards in my head: rather than "poor" I mostly still considered myself what this author would call "broke" the whole time. Maybe it was denial, maybe I was just another "temporarily embarrassed millionaire." But I adhered to the thought that I didn't belong in that situation, that it was temporary.

Regardless, poor and rich are relative terms; it's a continuum. You can never be "poor" and you can never be "rich." You can only be poorER, or richER, than somebody else. But there will still always be someone else poorER or richER than you. Ask Steve McQueen if he's rich, and he'll say well I'm not as rich as Paul Newman. Both dead now of course, but they once squabbled over who would get top billing in The Towering Inferno.

I think what I'm saying is that in some way, "poor" is in your mind, and as soon as you consider yourself poor, you are poor. I still wouldn't fault the author's friends for saying they're "too poor" to afford something; it is literally true. They're "rich" enough to afford food, sure, and I guess that offends the writer's sense of victimhood. The whole drama of this piece takes place in the writer's mind. It's a story of falling tragically from a place of privilege. People are "poor" every day and don't feel the need to write an article about it and nobody asks them to.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#122
post #95

> I often hear my friends say, “I’m too poor” when they’re frustrated about what they can’t have. Maybe it’s a trip they can’t afford, a renovation they want to start right now or a pretty pair of shoes they spotted in a shop window. I'm pretty sure I've literally never heard someone describe that as being "poor". Maybe this is some regional language thing?

I think this article (and I've seen another before just like it about the poor/broke distinction that had a really powerful piece about mental math while buying groceries) do a disservice to themselves by focusing on the usage of two very common, widely used words. It's fine for words to have multiple meanings in different contexts and those meanings are defined by usage. If people say "I'm too poor to get a pool mem…

Seems like these kinds of articles always need to have a scold or a guilt trip associated, though I’m not sure it’s irrational of the author. We are discussing it, aren’t we?

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#123
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why the ACA (Obamacare) was extra bad (for me and others in my situation). Not only do I have to subsidize the poor through taxes but now I have to subsidize higher risk individuals through my own increased premiums. I also make enough money to get zero tax breaks on any of it and the "marketplace" has removed all competition and downward price pressure. EDIT: People seem to think I'm being flippant or cruel…

You're so well paid that you don't get tax breaks, and you are forced to help poor people through taxes and insurance premiums? Sounds like a good situation to be in...

It's not helping the poor per se that makes many people uncomfortable: no sane person will share the "poor must die of hunger" attitude.

It's that we help only the poor. Look, I pay taxes. Poor people don't. Fine. I get it. But they do get free medical insurance, I don't. They get free college, I don't. All I get back are reminders about "straight white men privilege". That's not fair.

Nobody likes paying taxes. But if it's "guys, let's all cough up what we can and build a greater society for all of us", I'm for it. If it's "let's build a greater society for the poor" - that's a much more bitter pill to swallow.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#124
post #95

> I often hear my friends say, “I’m too poor” when they’re frustrated about what they can’t have. Maybe it’s a trip they can’t afford, a renovation they want to start right now or a pretty pair of shoes they spotted in a shop window. I'm pretty sure I've literally never heard someone describe that as being "poor". Maybe this is some regional language thing?

I think this article (and I've seen another before just like it about the poor/broke distinction that had a really powerful piece about mental math while buying groceries) do a disservice to themselves by focusing on the usage of two very common, widely used words. It's fine for words to have multiple meanings in different contexts and those meanings are defined by usage. If people say "I'm too poor to get a pool mem…

[deleted]

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#126
post #2

Poverty especially sucks when you're all alone like it seems this person was. Where I grew up, most of the people were poor, but we had rich lives for the most part. Lots of family dinners and outings. The people with more would let you take the leftovers home. You can't really train this and we all definitely need a social safety net, but I do think our closed off society prevents us from helping each other too.

I think the recent decades turned us away from ~natural gathering/solidarity mindset. Consumerism drugs you thinking the best thing is to satisfy envy with things, and without a context of cultural sharing habits, many people end up alone struggling thinking people are selfish because today's mainstream is selfish and so it's hard to connect.

From anthropological research people in subsistence farming societies do not tend to accumulate. If there is surplus (which is mainly crops) it is put towards accumulating social capital (fiesta, wedding, social gathering, gifts to neighbors and family). The safety network is not accumulated capital but social relations (social capital).

In urban societies relations become more money based and suddenly people tend to accumulate wealth and there is never enough.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#127
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't correct. In states that accepted Medicaid expansion through the ACA, those who make a certain percentage of the federal poverty level[1] would be eligible for coverage under Medicaid. I would argue that the FPL is laughably low, and that an income that is even twice that of the FPL still counts as poverty level income. In states that didn't accept Medicaid expansion through the ACA, people who are poor are…

That’s not totally correct either. First, the “percentage” is 138% under the ACA, or about $16,500. Second, every state covers at least parents, children, and pregnant women under Medicaid (the author of the article would be covered in any state). Some states who didn’t accept Medicaid expansion don’t cover childless adults.

> Second, every state covers at least parents, children, and pregnant women under Medicaid (the author of the article would be covered in any state)

I'm unaware of a nation-wide program that covers parents under Medicaid at either 100% or 138% of the FPL.

The numbers I can find paint a different picture, for example, parents in Alabama are only eligible if they make below 13% of the FPL[1].

If you have another source, I'm genuinely interested in it.

[1] https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/program-information/medica...

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that simple. Social connections require work, they also are slow and unreliable. Before the information age, to get to know something, talking was the main way. But now with books, panels, displays, packaging, signs, internet, GPS, etc., we have access to a huge quantity of information without having to talk to each others. And we choose to do so because on average it's faster, more accurate, and avoid to deal wi…

I don't see much of a difference. There still is a popularity game and it's played with corporations, not people. Though I agree that it's not necessarily a bad thing in comparison.

Yes, but your popularity doesn't affect your experience of buying bread or your ability to reach a destination. In Mali you may get more expensive and shittier products for being disliked. You may have a hard time finding a good guide to accompany you somewhere.

You life literally depends on what others think about you.

It still true for us, but an order of magnitude less after high school.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#129

> I often hear my friends say, “I’m too poor” when they’re frustrated about what they can’t have. Maybe it’s a trip they can’t afford, a renovation they want to start right now or a pretty pair of shoes they spotted in a shop window. I'm pretty sure I've literally never heard someone describe that as being "poor". Maybe this is some regional language thing?

(American from New York state and currently in NYC.)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the general-purpose definition of "poor" in English is used when discussing things from a life perspective -- economic background, current salary, job prospects, ability to go to college, etc.

When the context is how much money is in your bank account right now (e.g. to shop or take a trip), the general word is "broke" or just "I don't have enough money." And to be honest, "broke" seems outdated and rarely used these days, since it's usually fairly easy to have a credit card or ability to overdraft... so it's often more about your financial discipline than ability. I hear a lot more "I'm already over budget for the month" or just "I can't spend anything until next week" or "no money" than "I'm broke".

That being said, I've definitely heard "poor" used as a synonym for "broke", I'm pretty sure in the UK... but it does strike me as a regionalism.

Re: The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

#130
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US provides acute treatment for the destitute (i.e. we'll fix your broken bone), but I don't think we'll provide chronic treatment for the destitute. I've never heard of a destitute person getting free chemo or hospice for example.

You're essentially right. My neighbor poster harryh mentions Medicaid, but there are many situations in which you can be destitute and not qualify, or not qualify for many months, during which time you can suffer from lack of chemo for instance. A schoolmate of mine died from cancer in her 20s because the cancer was discovered late due to lack of insurance/healthcare, and then treatment was delayed almost a year beca…

It is true that their are gaps between the truly poor/broke that qualify for medicaid and those (like your friend apparently) who have some money but do not purchase private health insurance. This is, indeed, a problem.

It's worth noting that these gaps closed significantly with the passage of the ACA (ObamaCare).

Post reply on HN