Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money – a.k.a. “FU, Money” • Hacker News Board

Re: Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money – a.k.a. “FU, Money”

#121

Post by Nextgrid » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 6:36 PM UTC

toto444 wrote: post #83

buran77 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With $3-4k you can live more than decently in 99% of Europe. Sure, it might not get you very far in the most expensive cities like Geneva, but otherwise you can can have anything between a very comfortable and a very lavish lifestyle. This is subjective, after all a luxury car or a top of the line Mac are just as expensive wherever you go. But for the amenities of regular life you really shouldn't worry about missing…

£3,000 in London is comfortable if you don't have kids. Nursery fees are about £1,800 and a rent £1,500.

That amount in London is a bit of a problem if you live close to the city center due to housing prices. So you can either live close, not having the overhead of commutes, or live far away and then be better off financially but have the inconvenience of a commute.

Re: Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money – a.k.a. “FU, Money”

#122

Post by imtringued » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 6:50 PM UTC

imheretolearn wrote: post #8

>> At one time while I was homeless, relatives helped me deal with some of my financial drama >> I was able to resist such pressures and make decisions for myself, including moving my bank account at a later date on terms that made more sense for me, because I had some maneuvering room in the form of food stamps and knowing where I could get a free meal or free clothes. Food stamps didn't cover some essential nonfood…

>To access Reddit you first need a device AND an internet connection AND you need to be literate.

That's an incredibly low barrier. Homeless people are merely people without homes. Compare the cost of a smartphone and mobile internet to how much you would have to spend on rent to cease being homeless. Let's be extremely reckless and just get an iPhone Xs plan for $60 per month including 20GB worth of data. Even the most expensive option is basically less than 10% of my rent. It's easy to find a prepaid smartphone for $200-$300 that will be equally useful as the iPhone, last you at least 6 years and you can charge the balance up by going to a retail store where you can simply pay with cash.

Although I agree that literacy is priceless it's probably not 100% required with a modern smartphone. You can probably use voice commands and watch videos and listen to podcasts.

>This doesn't even touch the surface of what real problems most of the world in poor countries face.

Poor countries only have themselves to blame. The real problem they face is primarily the result of government incompetence or corruption and conflicts between countries. In a globalized world prosperity is coming to everyone that is embracing it.

Slums are the result of the poor showing their willpower to pull themselves out of their misery but they are usually prevented by government policy to make their dreams come true. Tent cities in San Francisco are truly worthy of being called slums because their root cause is exactly the same.

I personally think your argumentation is weird. (Don't feel bad about this) You classify homelessness in the US (or any other developed country) as a "First World Problem" because it does not compare to "true poverty" experienced in "truly poor" countries. The implication is that we should be glad that poverty in the US is this "insignificant" but therein lies the paradox. If it's truly insignificant then why should homelessness/poverty as we know it exist at all? People somehow think that the poor should suffer as if they have received a punishment that they badly deserved but yet the poor should also feel good about themselves because it could be even worse. All of this is merely a justification to not help anyone. What you are doing is the same thing you accuse the author of doing. The author isn't thinking about people poorer than her but what about you? Are you thinking about people poorer than you (such as the author)? No, you aren't, not even after reading one article from a poor person.

Re: Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money – a.k.a. “FU, Money”

#123

Post by Nextgrid » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 6:53 PM UTC

StavrosK wrote: post #53

arcsin wrote: post #24

Coming at it from a different perspective, I did something similar to this by saving money on a US salary and then moving to a low cost of living country. I spent years at a time not working or even thinking about how to make money. I think almost everyone has felt the pain of financial and social obligation, but very few people have experience a total lack of such obligations for years at a time which leads to thing…

I work remotely and live in a low cost of living country, but find that's not very true for me. I always have my own projects and hobbies to work on, and I love working on them whenever I want to. I feel pretty motivated and fulfilled with that, so I don't get the feelings you mention. Not having a job can sometimes feel like you don't have a long-term purpose, but I think that's mostly because we've been used to wor…

I think the original post referred more to the social impacts of the situation to which I can relate to. You can indeed work on your own projects/hobbies but I find it's harder to find people to connect with if your situation is so different.

Re: Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money – a.k.a. “FU, Money”

#124

Post by imtringued » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 7:02 PM UTC

imheretolearn wrote: post #46

tlarkworthy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno why your being so harsh. It's not a competition on who who had the most dreadful circumstances. FYI, the average life expectancy in Papua New Guinea is 64. Homelessness, even in a first world country, is objectively a bad situation to be in regardless. I am thankful to the author for sharing her reality with me. I appreciate her lucidity which is a huge asset I think.

>> Ultimately, I concluded that being able to choose wasn't really about money per se but was about maneuvering room. Yes, having sufficient resources helps, but making choices in life and exercising free will is not directly related to how much or how little money a person has. It helps if you have some confidence you won't starve or otherwise experience catastrophe, but that isn't about money per se. I am not being…

It's not exactly an implicit assumption. The message was only intended for those who can receive it. Otherwise we get into a weird situation in which humans are trying to communicate with jellyfish through waves and light patterns to get them out of poverty. The message clearly wasn't meant to save every single living being from poverty.

Re: Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money – a.k.a. “FU, Money”

#125

Post by imtringued » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 7:19 PM UTC

scott_siskind wrote: post #74

tlarkworthy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno why your being so harsh. It's not a competition on who who had the most dreadful circumstances. FYI, the average life expectancy in Papua New Guinea is 64. Homelessness, even in a first world country, is objectively a bad situation to be in regardless. I am thankful to the author for sharing her reality with me. I appreciate her lucidity which is a huge asset I think.

I find it very easy to understand where parent commenter is coming from. Even though this may not be obvious, this is very much a competition. A competition for attention, for emotional support, or simply for validation. And when you've experienced the neglect, being ignored by society and generally the experience of homelessness or any other terrible circumstances, and see someone with better circumstances getting s…

You must be misunderstanding the nature of poverty if you think so. Someone with better circumstances is by definition getting better support and help than someone with worse circumstances otherwise their circumstances would not be better. The more help you get the richer you are and there is no upper bound to that but if you don't get enough help that's when you are poor. I like the literacy example. Someone who learned to read and write at a school received more help than someone who didn't go to school. Now extend this to high school, university and all the job experience you got during your career. Someone who has gotten more help is not always deserving less help, especially if they can use that help to support themselves and free up or contribute resources to help others.

If you think this is a zero sum game then diverting that attention to someone else will not solve poverty. One person will become poorer, the other will become less poor. The "real" loser is one who believes in zero sum thinking.

Re: Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money – a.k.a. “FU, Money”

#126

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 7:20 PM UTC

Wildgoose wrote: post #97

DoreenMichele wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In reality of course, first class passengers were more than twice as likely to survive as third class ones. I'm reasonably sure that's because the gates to third class were locked to keep them off the decks and not because first class passengers were successfully bribing staff to let them onto the life boats. So, for me, it doesn't diminish the power of the scene. The original piece that this was based upon was writt…

No, that's a complete myth, probably propagated by the Titanic movie. Third-class women (& children of course) were MORE likely to survive than a male in First-class.

[deleted]

Re: Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money – a.k.a. “FU, Money”

#127

Post by gwern » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 7:32 PM UTC

Joeboy wrote: post #65

> I also really like the scene in Titanic where the rich guy tries to buy his way into a lifeboat and gets told his money won't be worth anything at the bottom of the ocean. In reality of course, first class passengers were more than twice as likely to survive as third class ones.

Speaking of fact vs fiction in _Titanic_, https://www.econlib.org/the-anticapitalist-mentality/ the other week happened to mention:

"'On 14 April 1912, Benjamin Guggenheim, Solomon’s younger brother, found himself on board the Titanic, and, as the ship started sinking, he was one of those who helped women and children onto the lifeboats, withstanding the frenzy, and at times the brutality, of other male passengers. Then, when his steward was ordered to man one of the boats, Guggenheim took his leave, and asked him to tell his wife that ‘no woman was left on board because Ben Guggenheim was a coward’. And that was it. His words may have been a little less resonant, but it really doesn’t matter; he did the right, very difficult thing to do. And so, when a researcher for Cameron’s 1997 _Titanic_ unearthed the anecdote, he immediately brought it to the scriptwriters’ attention: what a scene. But he was flatly turned down: too unrealistic. The rich don’t die for abstract principles like cowardice and the like. And indeed, the film’s vaguely Guggenheim-like figure tries to force his way onto a lifeboat with a gun.'

Now, here come the interesting questions. When the scriptwriters did rule out the inclusion of this scene, did they do so because they thought the audience would consider it implausible? Because they themselves despised the rich so much that they did not want to concede even one of them the moral high ground? Because they feared their movie would be considered capitalist propaganda, if they included Ben Guggenheim as a hero?"

Re: Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money – a.k.a. “FU, Money”

#128

Post by 10xPerson » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 7:34 PM UTC

082349872349872 wrote: post #81

Joeboy wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always been a totally normal conversation, at least where I live (the UK), for the last few decades. I had a colleague who complained that he couldn't reasonably be expected to live on his pitiful salary, which turned out to be £80k (about $120k, adjusted for inflation). Poverty oneupmanship from 1967: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHFZBUTA4k

When I was living in the US, I used to enjoy hearing people talk about "being rich." (To understand this circumlocution, the reader must understand that they're all "middle class" over there.) The most egregious instance was when I was talking with someone in a VIP tent, watching her pro jumping her horse over fences in a competition. She'd made some kind of comment about how she was different from the people she had…

>"watching her pro jumping her horse over fences in a competition."

I have a hard time understanding this sentence

Re: Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money – a.k.a. “FU, Money”

#129

Post by DoreenMichele » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 8:05 PM UTC

hamilyon2 wrote: post #77

DoreenMichele wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the author. I'm disabled and the primary provider for my family of three, which includes two disabled sons. I absolutely didn't want to be poor. I'm still poor and I hate every minute of it. I wish desperately that I had more money and I am doing all in my power to resolve my problems and this has been true for years. "First world problem" or not, being homeless in a first world country is still a very real probl…

Thank you for writing. Please don't be offended by what I am going to say. So, what you write about yourself is only proving gp's point. Amount of social support you receive is on par with 1-st world countries. Which of course doesn't mean you are not poor and your situation isn't tough. In most ways, you are not priveleged. It is just another dimension of poor that gp is talking about. Where watermelon is not a cost…

I'm not offended. I will note their remark was edited after I replied and I have no idea if you saw the original. My remark was not edited.

Sometimes, if you don't see the exchange "live" as it happens, you don't really know what people were reacting to and when people edit their own comments and don't annotate the edits as such, it can cause replies to come across weirdly and make no sense to people reading the comments later.

I feel like initial responses understood why I replied the way I did and later replies didn't. I can't help but suspect the unannotated edits are a factor in that shift.

I've hardly slept. I'm trying to step away from this discussion because I feel I've said plenty and there's probably little upside but lots of downside to me continuing to react to things on too little sleep etc.

Re: Independently Poor: A Twist on FU Money – a.k.a. “FU, Money”

#130

Post by gulato » Sat, Jul 25, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

mdavis6890 wrote: post #118

fxtentacle wrote: post #68

Thanks to covid, I have experienced how it must be to not have fu money. I'm not entirely sure why, but many companies are now hoping to take advantage of the rise in unemployment by trying to lock in highly skilled workers at a low salary. The way those job offers were presented, it seemed like they were feeling like my savior in a shining armor for offering job openings in these challenging times. But they were ask…

"take advantage of the rise in unemployment by trying to lock in highly skilled workers at a low salary" >> By 'take advantage' do you mean offering jobs to people who might be interested in accepting them? >> By 'lock in' do you mean employing people until whenever those people feel like moving on to something else? If so, those are strange definitions. Doesn't sound like anybody is being forced into anything. "offe…

I can't know what the poster was thinking obviously ... but what I took the comment to mean was, within the context of the actual article, they were happy that they now have FU money .. and absolutely can say "no".

Then the comment was them imparting a personal story framed by what they assume the employer's thought process was. And how they were happy to be privileged enough to have reached FU Money.

The fact that you say "it seems nobody is being forced in to anything" I think is kinda missing the point of the (imho substandard whingey) rant the posted link actually was. I mean, it articulates (poorly) how people are/feel forced in to accepting such situations.