Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All in all our seven-person family has around 1400-1500 dollars in monthly expenditure Yeah, I doubt that takes into account external things like school lunches and neighbors giving things to the “poor” children. With “poor” meaning unfortunate and not poverty stricken. Every time I hear of a school closing for whatever reason they always state that the food program will remain open because truly poor people rely o…
School lunches in Sweden are free.
On the experience of being dirt-poorish, for people who want to be
21–30 of 89 posts
Re: On the experience of being dirt-poorish, for people who want to be
#22The author refers to others being driven by class and status. There are however also people who work because they want to contribute to society and provide purpose to others and themselves. I was instilled by my parents with a principle that I should give back more than I take from society. I am not judging the author, and I believe he and his wife love their kids, which is what matters most. But as others have point…
Society is not involved in this. Actual society only exists with everyones spare time and only connects to others in there spare time.
Nobody chose to be part of this machine, they all march at gunpoint of each other. If they had a choice, they would abandon the whole thing, be the cog, that with a last pling vannished into some dark corner.
To project emotions on this machinery is miss guided. The cattle farm feeding robot, does not appreciate the subjective warmth emotions those it feeds project on it. To bring morals into the whole affair as a engineer, is a lack of judgment.
Its a machine, nothing more nothing less.
Re: On the experience of being dirt-poorish, for people who want to be
#23> We save even more on heating. For heating we use wood that we get from the surrounding forests more or less for free (just insert physical labor). Someone subsidizes your living, then, by giving you the wood. I mean I hope they are giving you the wood, because otherwise that would be theft. Where I live, most forest is national, and you can't even gather fallen branches. You can buy the wood or a permit to gather a…
Re: On the experience of being dirt-poorish, for people who want to be
#24Re: On the experience of being dirt-poorish, for people who want to be
#25> We save even more on heating. For heating we use wood that we get from the surrounding forests more or less for free (just insert physical labor). Someone subsidizes your living, then, by giving you the wood. I mean I hope they are giving you the wood, because otherwise that would be theft. Where I live, most forest is national, and you can't even gather fallen branches. You can buy the wood or a permit to gather a…
And that's stupid as stupid can be, and it's not theft. Around these parts of the world (Eastern Europe) that used to be customary practice for hundreds of years, maybe even more, meaning people taking the falling branches for heating purposes over the winter.
Of course, as modernisation set on around these parts of the continent (thanks, Brussels) then all that became highly illegal, so that highly-equipped policemen were set up to patrol the foresty areas and confiscate the equipment used for said "theft" from what are mostly very poor people, which in many cases involved them confiscating a very weak horse and a barely functioning wooden cart. But hey, modernisation!
This whole subject makes me very angry because it is so reactionary, as you've got poor people supporting the brunt of the law while the wood multinationals (or whatever their PR name is) are profiting from it because they can afford to cut exponentially more wood in a "legal" manner. And yes, we do own a small piece of forest in my family (my brother does, in fact), so I should be all-in for the camp of "damn poors are stealing our branches from the forrest we own!". I am not.
One of the very few positive aspects of all this is that these type of police-imposed reactionary actions coming from the very top have created a new sense of community in my brother's village. Nowadays almost the whole village is again on the lookout for patrolling police vans, as the villagers communicate with the people who are in the forest to take wood as to the policemen's whereabouts and instruct them when it's safe to pass.
And then city-based laptop class people complain how come the "populists" are winning more and more votes.
Re: On the experience of being dirt-poorish, for people who want to be
#26I strongly disagree with the premise. This isn't proper poverty, this is a borderline agrarian lifestyle utilizing various allowances as well as support structures intended for the poor. The author has a personal safety net, as well as a social one supporting them, and took advantage of lax property enforcement to build a house on state land. If you have means and options like they do, you aren't dirt poor. This isn'…
Choosing to live with low consumption is laudable. I grew up in a thrifty household, though nowhere near so thrifty as the author's, and using less was much better for all of us. However, spending very little money but having a safety net and the opportunity to leave is the opposite of being trapped.
It's like a controlled retreat versus a rout. When you're choosing to be poor you have time and slack to make the choice. You might choose to live in a nice but remote house in the forest, which you may actually own outright (the article has no mention of rent or mortgage), and collect wood and grow your own food. When you're forced out of your shitty apartment because you lost your job or your landlord kicked you out on some flimsy pretext, as has happened to a few of my friends, then you've got two options: either find someone to give you a bit of breathing room by loaning you money/space on the couch/etc., or get an even shittier apartment for a worse price.
Re: On the experience of being dirt-poorish, for people who want to be
#27I strongly disagree with the premise. This isn't proper poverty, this is a borderline agrarian lifestyle utilizing various allowances as well as support structures intended for the poor. The author has a personal safety net, as well as a social one supporting them, and took advantage of lax property enforcement to build a house on state land. If you have means and options like they do, you aren't dirt poor. This isn'…
Completely agree, the author is describing frugality, not the experience of being dirt poor. > Each month the very generous Swedish government gives us no less than 600 dollars in child allowance. We also have some other incomes from book sales and irregular jobs. And we do have savings, larger than we like to admit, which in good years give capital income and in less good years give a cushion to take from. All in al…
Exactly.
I hate to say it, because I've often heard it coming from very financially privileged people as an accusation towards poor people, but in essence being poor is a state of mind, meaning it's not necessarily the lack of money and financial means that gets to you (even though that's not ideal, of course), it is the constant thought of not having money and financial means that eats at your soul.
I know because me and my parents stumbled upon a period of quite severe lack of financial resources about 20-25 years ago, in my adolescence years, and even though I've personally and thankfully managed to get out of it (thanks to free uni education) the feeling is still there, I suspect it will always be there till the day I'll be no more.
And, yes, whenever someone writes poverty tourism pieces like this one Common People is the first song I think about. Often times I come back listening to it on YT and watching the video just because.
Re: On the experience of being dirt-poorish, for people who want to be
#28There seems to be a lot of baggage from his childhood and subtle resentment to his parents. I'm concerned for his mental health. If this is truly just his personal choice though, I really question the relationship he has with his children and his justifications for how he provides the bare minimum for them when her could certainly do more. For someone so focused on frugality and minimalism his discussion about his children was focused completely on materialism, gift giving and the fact that a little under half of his monthly income came from government programs targeted at children. I kept expecting to read something about how he connects with them in emotionally meaningful ways or helps them grow and thrive. That love and care just didn't seem there.
Ultimately I worry about the kids, specifically their emotional and developmental needs. Their dad is so focused on himself and how he wants to live. That sounds like a very tough home to grow up in, even if the author was spectacularly rich.
Re: On the experience of being dirt-poorish, for people who want to be
#29he touches on interesting points and I actually appreciate the honesty, but kind of meandering, a bit pointless, and in parts outright massively contradicts itself: > Living without spending takes some time and effort, just like a job. But at least it is a job I can perform at the time and place of my own choosing right above that he sounds like he's lamenting being stranded in his location, unable to travel, come an…
Re: On the experience of being dirt-poorish, for people who want to be
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, 'providers' are paid much less nowadays compared to the past. Like for how long should one work to afford a house? If society is making people's life worse by requiring to work more for less, why should people care to go extra?
I don't know, man. I guess, in the end, it's about fulfilling your purpose. For some, it is family. For others, it is to build. For yet others, it is to serve. Overall, it's quite galling to see half of every dollar go to California and the US and see it spent on ineffectual and greedy people far less capable than me and with far less suffering than who I'd prefer to help. But what's the alternative? I must fulfill t…
So as well paid software engineers our overall tax rates as single filers in California reach about 40% at $400k but would only reach 50% at around $5M annual income.
That public services are so expensive to provide in California reflects the fact that housing costs are so expensive. Housing costs are where they are because of a mix of very high average wages and the ingrained nimbyism of existing home owners sitting on multi-million dollar homes.
At the end of the day median public sector workers like teachers need to earn enough to pay median housing costs. In the Bay Area we don't pay teachers anything like that. That makes me wonder whether I should move away when I have school age kids even if I am making absurd tech salaries here.