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

‘Some things never leave you’: Poverty’s indelible marks

longreads.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 227 posts

Re: ‘Some things never leave you’: Poverty’s indelible marks

#121

Post by civopsec »

hilom wrote: post #3

That was a long read, but very much worth reading. This part really stuck out to me: > A few years ago, a friend of mine, in a well-meaning attempt to understand the impoverished diets of poor people, ate a Food Stamp diet for a week. On the last day of the diet, he talked about what he had learned and spoke philosophically about his renewed appreciation of healthy food as he prepared to end his restricted diet with…

Makes me think of the “delayed gratification” experiments. Someone who is of means probably has an easier time delaying gratification because they have the means to figuratively “break the fast”. They also know that they have the resources to get somewhere in life. But what if you don’t? What if that “instant gratification” is all that you can expect to get for a good while?

Re: ‘Some things never leave you’: Poverty’s indelible marks

#122

Post by forgotusername6 »

civopsec wrote: post #121
hilom wrote: post #3

That was a long read, but very much worth reading. This part really stuck out to me: > A few years ago, a friend of mine, in a well-meaning attempt to understand the impoverished diets of poor people, ate a Food Stamp diet for a week. On the last day of the diet, he talked about what he had learned and spoke philosophically about his renewed appreciation of healthy food as he prepared to end his restricted diet with…

Makes me think of the “delayed gratification” experiments. Someone who is of means probably has an easier time delaying gratification because they have the means to figuratively “break the fast”. They also know that they have the resources to get somewhere in life. But what if you don’t? What if that “instant gratification” is all that you can expect to get for a good while?

Relevant Orwell quote "And the peculiar evil is this, that the less money you have, the less inclined you feel to spend it on wholesome food. A millionaire may enjoy breakfasting off orange juice and Ryvita biscuits; an unemployed man doesn't. Here the tendency of which I spoke at the end of the last chapter comes into play. When you are unemployed, which is to say when you are underfed, harassed, bored, and miserable, you don't want to eat dull wholesome food. You want something a little bit 'tasty'. There is always some cheaply pleasant thing to tempt you"

Re: ‘Some things never leave you’: Poverty’s indelible marks

#123

Post by chitowneats »

Mezzie wrote: post #77
retrac wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The lack of reward for planning (by virtue of not having the resources since they're always insufficient and tied up in more immediate concerns) similarly promotes a very detached and immediate lifestyle. I have $50. $50 can mean I have fun tonight. $50 does nothing for me next week except maybe let me buy some food, which I can probably scrape together another way. So I'm going to have some fun tonight. The notion t…

Yes. Also the advice to scrimp assumes there is a way that the person will ever NOT be poor/in poverty, and that isn't true for some/most poor people. I'm a disabled American who is the breadwinner for myself and another disabled person. Saving would punish us: My sister would lose her health care and I would lose the financial assistance I get for my MS meds. Even if I make more money, it's all going to medical cost…

There are systems that we could implement that don't have this problem. They could still be generous. In fact they could be more generous. This is classic problem of perverse incentives created by inefficient, though well meaning system.

Re: ‘Some things never leave you’: Poverty’s indelible marks

#125

Post by lotsofpulp »

bluedino wrote: post #69
unethical_ban wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A double quarter pounder meal is $11 with tax in Texas. I'm not poor but I'm realizing just how insane it is to eat out regularly now.

I remember working retail years ago, and having co-workers that would get fast food for lunch. They're spending 3 hours (after-tax) of of their minimum wage pay on lunch. How much sense does that make?

There are multiple subsets of poor.

There are poor who are so exhausted and so without capacity to move up that a little enjoyment from fast food is what keeps them going.

And there are also poor who are wasting resources they could be using to move up. Such as young kids with stable homes working retail/hotel/other lower paying jobs, but instead of a making a healthy moong bean salad at home for $3 of ingredients and 30min of their time, they order a $25 chipotle meal from door dash everyday at work.

Re: ‘Some things never leave you’: Poverty’s indelible marks

#126

Post by josephcsible »

notRobot wrote: post #57
bluedino wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For example, things like getting a dog, signing up for cable TV, getting an unnecessarily expensive new phone, spending money on going out to eat, etc. In a way, people without a lot of money need to "learn how to be poor" When you're low on money, you eat sandwiches and ramen and beans and potatoes. You don't eat McDonald's or get Starbucks.

Ah yes. "If only these people would abstain from the joys of eating fucking McDonald's , they'd no longer be poor."

The point is that even the cheapest restaurants are more expensive than preparing food yourself.

Re: ‘Some things never leave you’: Poverty’s indelible marks

#127

Post by Aunche »

CobaltFire wrote: post #87
pflenker wrote: post #12

One of the things that suck most about being poor is that you need to have money in order to save money. You need to have enough money to buy a certain level of quality, and if you don't have it, you're forced to buy cheap stuff that breaks more easily (thus spending more money in total). I found this aspect hard to understand for others, the attitude often seems to be: "you don't have to be poor, you simply need to…

See “The Sam Vimes “Boots” Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness”: The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboar…

It's easier to make economic theories that fit science fiction rather than real life. The Vimes boots problem has already been solved by financing. Services like Affirm would allow Sam Vimes to pay the $50 boots in 4 biweekly installments of $12.50. If the theory were correct, then buy-now-pay-later programs would help alleviate poverty, but what we see instead is that it worsens it by enabling consumerist purchases.

Re: ‘Some things never leave you’: Poverty’s indelible marks

#128

Post by josephcsible »

jl6 wrote: post #56
pflenker wrote: post #12

One of the things that suck most about being poor is that you need to have money in order to save money. You need to have enough money to buy a certain level of quality, and if you don't have it, you're forced to buy cheap stuff that breaks more easily (thus spending more money in total). I found this aspect hard to understand for others, the attitude often seems to be: "you don't have to be poor, you simply need to…

Ironic that hire-purchase / instalment plans are designed to solve this problem but end up making it worse because they're usually only available at predatory rates, due to the huge risk of default. Lenders and borrowers alike can’t rely on the borrower having a source of income at all. For most people on a low income, it could be better to be on an even lower income if in exchange that income could be made more reli…

> they're usually only available at predatory rates, due to the huge risk of default.

This seems contradictory: if rates are sky-high, but they need to be that high to avoid the lenders losing money due to the huge risk of default, then they're not predatory.

Re: ‘Some things never leave you’: Poverty’s indelible marks

#129

Post by opportune »

CobaltFire wrote: post #87
pflenker wrote: post #12

One of the things that suck most about being poor is that you need to have money in order to save money. You need to have enough money to buy a certain level of quality, and if you don't have it, you're forced to buy cheap stuff that breaks more easily (thus spending more money in total). I found this aspect hard to understand for others, the attitude often seems to be: "you don't have to be poor, you simply need to…

See “The Sam Vimes “Boots” Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness”: The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboar…

No post body was provided.

Re: ‘Some things never leave you’: Poverty’s indelible marks

#130

Post by opportune »

retrac wrote: post #71
pflenker wrote: post #12

One of the things that suck most about being poor is that you need to have money in order to save money. You need to have enough money to buy a certain level of quality, and if you don't have it, you're forced to buy cheap stuff that breaks more easily (thus spending more money in total). I found this aspect hard to understand for others, the attitude often seems to be: "you don't have to be poor, you simply need to…

The lack of reward for planning (by virtue of not having the resources since they're always insufficient and tied up in more immediate concerns) similarly promotes a very detached and immediate lifestyle. I have $50. $50 can mean I have fun tonight. $50 does nothing for me next week except maybe let me buy some food, which I can probably scrape together another way. So I'm going to have some fun tonight. The notion t…

I can see the reasoning but I still don’t see it as sensible per se. Having a buffer of just $1-3k at the end of the year instead of blowing $50 here and there could make a huge difference as far as anxiety and ability to weather unforeseen issues.

Yes, unforeseen things will still arise but you’d rather have the $1k you need to deal with it than not.

I’m more partial to the argument that splurges allow people to temporarily feel like they aren’t poor

Post reply on HN