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

The difference between ‘broke’ and ‘poor’

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 234 posts

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

#201

Post by dragon96 »

rdiddly wrote: post #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…

I love this way of thinking about "poor" and "rich" as mental labels rather than objective monetary worth. It makes me wonder: Why is it easy to label oneself as "poor" or "rich", but not as someone on the middle of that spectrum?

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

#202

Post by manfredo »

scarface74 wrote: post #115
manfredo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly. The people who saw their premiums rise the most as a percentage of their income as a result of the ACA were mostly low income.

The ACA hasn’t been shown to be the cause of group insurance to go up. Not too many “low income” people could have afforded private insurance anyway. All of the mandates for what qualified as a real plan were things that were being offered voluntarily by both of my parents health plans in the 90s. My mom is a retired teacher and my dad is a retired factory worker.

How is expanding coverage to a larger pool of people (many of which have preexisting conditions that are forbidden from being factored into premiums) and subsidizing healthcare for the poor supposed to make healthcare cheaper? This is just voodoo economics, you don't get to simultaneously reduce costs while expanding coverage to higher risk people and people who don't pay market rates.

Getting nostalgic about the 90s isn't going to solve anyone's problem - not unless we're okay with euthanizing the elderly en masse to reduce the percentage of retirees back down to 1990s levels.

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

#203

Post by roel_v »

cm2012 wrote: post #20
ryanmarsh wrote: post #15

In my early 20's I had a girlfriend who was raised in Colombia and immigrated to the US in her teens. I remember one day recounting some bullshit middle-class slogan about how "it's better to be poor and happy, than rich and sad". She slapped me across the face and yelled at me. Passionate as she was she'd never done anything like that before. She told me what it was like growing up so poor you can't afford toothpast…

You're both right. Research shows that more money doesn't make you happier - after around 80k a year in family income. Before 80k a year (depending on location, etc, I think that was the average for the USA), every dollar absolutely makes you happier with a linear line graph. This is also a great argument for more marginal taxation.

Most of that research has been shown to be bunk.

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

#204

Post by ali-tny »

helsinki wrote: post #199

I lost interest after she states that she donated to charity.

Why? If you disagree with giving to charity, does that invalidate the rest of the article? Or are you suggesting that it was financially irresponsible to give to charity?

If the second, I think that this is wrong. She had a 6 month emergency fund - the (presumably) relatively little she gave to charity is unlikely to extend that runway very much. I think (some of) the point of the article is that true poverty is living a life in which your _needs_ are greater than your means. A little extra runway isn't going to help you in the long run there. Once you're in this position, often through no fault of your own, you become stuck in a cycle of poverty.

Rhetoric about poverty that implies that the poor are financially irresponsible I think is very damaging. No amount of fiscal responsibility could have shielded her from not being able to earn once she became sick, and having her costs drastically increased due to having a disabled child. I don't think it should be possible to find yourself in a situation where you cannot provide for your families needs (ie, food, rent etc) and we should be working towards creating a society where this is the case, rather than labelling poor people as financially irresponsible.

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

#205

Post by alwillis »

AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #123
coldtea wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's that we help only the poor. Look, I pay taxes. Poor people don’t.

Poor people pay just as much as everyone else in sales tax, excise tax, tolls, meal tax, etc. And because they are poor, they pay disproportionately more of their income in taxes than the wealthy.

I live in the Boston area—even though there are 70 colleges and universities here, none of them are free for poor people.

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

#206

Post by dang »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #91
jamiek88 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not how society works.

That is unfortunately how a ton of americans think however. Lots of people would rather set $100 on fire than have $50 help people they don't like.

Please keep nationalistic slurs and flamebait off this site.

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

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

#207

Post by toomuchtodo »

nicoburns wrote: post #172
toomuchtodo wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree entirely . But besides run for office (soon) and maxing out my FEC contribution limits (which I already do) to candidates who support policies that align with what you mentioned, this is the only alternative I can suggest. Tactical short term suffering reduction, strategic long term suffering reduction. Through both ideas and actions, you scale a compassionate society. A better tomorrow will hopefully arrive,…

> Societal fabric isn’t going to be solved through anything other than effort on the part of individuals. Right, but this seems pretty defeatist, or even like it 's advocating against government support. As a left-leaning person in the UK, I would look to the government before looking for financial support from friends and family, because I see that as one of the functions of government, whereas it may put more strai…

Not advocating against government support, I’m advocating for bootstrapping community (which government is not a replacement for).

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

#208

Post by roel_v »

samcodes wrote: post #190
roel_v wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only is she alone (as in 'single' - not to equate 'single' with 'alone' or 'lonely'...), she adopted three special needs children, too (I got this from following the link to her blog and then the 'about' section). From reading between the lines, it also seems she moved from the British countryside to a big Canadian city, likely leaving behind most of her social support network. Of course it's easy for me to 'judg…

Raising children is the primary function of society. Someone going beyond their means in order to raise more, harder to raise children should be celebrated. That we would see any fault is damning evidence that our society is malfunctioning.

"Raising children is the primary function of society."

Uh, says you. If people can't afford something, maybe they shouldn't get it - children included.

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

#209

Post by fooker »

themacguffinman wrote: post #177
fooker wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yes, but your popularity doesn't affect your experience of buying bread or your ability to reach a destination Your credit score does. In some places and situations, more directly than others.

Your credit score is a lot more straightforward and reliable than something like social popularity.

See what China is doing with the concept.

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

#210

Post by scarface74 »

manfredo wrote: post #202
scarface74 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ACA hasn’t been shown to be the cause of group insurance to go up. Not too many “low income” people could have afforded private insurance anyway. All of the mandates for what qualified as a real plan were things that were being offered voluntarily by both of my parents health plans in the 90s. My mom is a retired teacher and my dad is a retired factory worker.

How is expanding coverage to a larger pool of people (many of which have preexisting conditions that are forbidden from being factored into premiums) and subsidizing healthcare for the poor supposed to make healthcare cheaper? This is just voodoo economics, you don't get to simultaneously reduce costs while expanding coverage to higher risk people and people who don't pay market rates. Getting nostalgic about the 90s…

Most people come under group insurance for an employer. Insurance companies have never been able to exclude for preexisting conditions if you were part of the eligible group.

Also the plan offered through the exchange comes under a different pool with different cost. Insurance companies decide how to price group insurance for a company based on the demographics of a company.

Subsidizing health care for the poor would theoretically raise taxes not the amount you pay for your insurance.

Universal healthcare costing less per capita with a sane plan is not voodoo economics - we already pay more per person than every other industrial nation. There was nothing sane about keeping private insurance in the mix instead of just having a public option.

And seeing that retirees in the 90s and today come under Medicare, what does that have to do with private premiums?

Post reply on HN