Being poor vs. being broke • Hacker News Board

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#571

Post by djtango » Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 6:55 AM UTC

smallmancontrov wrote: post #550

hippo22 wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> If it could easily fetch more money, it would have been bid higher than £50. You know that isn't true. Auctions are noisy and poorly conducted auctions are worse. This is about some combination of sadism and negligence.

Oh hohoho but that would imply that the auction is inefficient and so surely rational actors would descend upon these auctions thereby converging this discount onto the true fair value of things.

Heaven forbid we admit that markets are not comprised of spherical chickens and that disconnects exist...

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#572

Post by duskdozer » Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 7:02 AM UTC

washadjeffmad wrote: post #326

ASalazarMX wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conversely, I had an acquaintance that grew poor, and would finish 95% of the cookies in a bag, but always leave the almost empty bag to the next person to find out, even if it had to stay that way for months. Strangely, she did that only with comfort foods.

The 'blank in the firing squad' technique of snacking is a pretty typical girl thing. Eating cookies? Perfectly fine. Eating an entire bag of cookies? Gross. Unthinkable. But how many cookies is really fine to eat? The safest best is not to know, either by breaking them into uncountable pieces or leaving some in the bag for someone else to finish (meaning, you ate less than a bag of cookies and are safe).

I do this, but it's not really about if it's "gross" to eat a whole bag or not. I don't feel like doing that anyway. It's mostly that if you share food, I think it's considerate to leave one if there's more than one left. Someone else might be having a really bad day, but a small consolation could be that they didn't get home to discover there aren't any cookies left.

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#573

Post by djtango » Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 7:04 AM UTC

yibg wrote: post #569

dijit wrote: post #125

Even this does a poor job of explaining being poor. The constant open loop on everything you own, terrified to discard anything even if its broken because there are components that might be useful to fix something else; the constant churn of second-hand (and cheap/disposable) things that are already close to death before they come into your possession and- crucially: the crushing weight of knowing that any financial…

Definitely agree on the mentality it creates and how long it lasts. I’m fairly well off now, but grew up very poor. First developing world poor where running water and toilets were shared with the whole building, the whole family crammed into a single room. Then western world poor, where my parents and some friends that lived together (to save money) would walk to get groceries, buy one bus ticket to have one person…

Something I find interesting is that my mother grew up in similar conditions - poor in Borneo in the 50s, my aunt was literally born in the jungle while hiding from the Japanese

And yet my mum's family were raised that they were broke, not poor.

There were definitely some echoes/overlap like we were raised that wasting food is one of the most egregious sins one can ever commit, and my mum has a compulsion of overpacking things with meat after growing up eating nothing but I know that she is definitely more broke than poor and was therefore able to reverse her fortunes.

Similarly, if you know people who grew up in Mainland China during the early years of the PRC, you can tell that while everyone had it tough, some people were poor while others were broke and this then can help explain the divergences of their outcomes when riding the wave of growth.

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#574

Post by prmph » Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 7:04 AM UTC

spwa4 wrote: post #510

prmph wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much the absolute amount you have, but rather your situation in comparison with your country men. Yes, I know what 3rd-world poverty looks like, but, in a sense health care is more accessible to poor people in 3rd-world countries than in some advanced countries (e.g., US). Also, the morale-destroying aspect of poverty hits harder in advanced countries, because people assume you're poor because of what TFA…

> health care is more accessible to poor people in 3rd-world countries than in some advanced countries (e.g., US). Do you seriously believe it's even remotely comparable? In 3rd-world countries even basic healthcare is totally inaccessible unless someone in your family is at the top level of government. If you're a worker or in a worker family even glasses are probably almost impossible to get.

> In 3rd-world countries even basic healthcare is totally inaccessible unless someone in your family is at the top level of government. If you're a worker or in a worker family even glasses are probably almost impossible to get.

I know for sure this is totally wrong, because I have lived in 3rd world countries, and I was born in one. You're just imagining stuff.

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#575

Post by Vera_Wilde » Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 7:07 AM UTC

throwaway173738 wrote: post #504

dwedge wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its not uncommon to have the few worthwhile items you own being seized by bailifs to recoup debts, treasured heirlooms that cannot be replaced and have little monetary value so they do no impact to your debt. The hoarding of canned goods to avoid being unable to eat. As a teenager I worked at a bailiffs in the office typing up the paperwork. One case that stuck was me was where the debtor owed somewhere around £400…

It’s like a bunch of apes took over our society and worked as hard as possible to make everything as cruel as possible for no particular reason.

Hah!

Yeah, the bonobo/chimp contrast shows it’s not an inevitability. We just optimized for the wrong equilibrium.

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#576

Post by prmph » Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 7:12 AM UTC

terminalshort wrote: post #540

prmph wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much the absolute amount you have, but rather your situation in comparison with your country men. Yes, I know what 3rd-world poverty looks like, but, in a sense health care is more accessible to poor people in 3rd-world countries than in some advanced countries (e.g., US). Also, the morale-destroying aspect of poverty hits harder in advanced countries, because people assume you're poor because of what TFA…

But the difference is that I can respect people who complain about having absolutely nothing, but I can't take seriously the complaints of rich people that they aren't richer.

You misunderstood my response. Let me explain better: I'm not saying what matters is the relative amount of money you have in relation to your peers; it is about the relative claim you have on resources, power, respect, mental health, etc.

Money and those other things may be correlated, but focusing on those things emphasizes how much money is a proxy for them.

So for example, even if you earn 100k, but many/most people are earning 500k, it cause a huge power imbalance that enables them to easily make your life miserable on a whim. It also causes society to see you as a failure, causing mental/emotional distress that further pull you into a spiral of despair.

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#577

Post by Aeolun » Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 7:22 AM UTC

I feel like the author tells us that being poor means worrying about problems you can’t fix all the time? Or at least, that you believe you can never fix them?

If you don’t have the $300 for the own part repair on your truck, there’s no point in worrying about it. If you truck breaks it breaks, it’s never going to recover unless you think of something else. Complaining that you don’t have $300 for even the home repair doesn’t do anything to improve the situation. Better figure out a way to live if the truck breaks.

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#578

Post by chistev » Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 7:27 AM UTC

Aeolun wrote: post #577

I feel like the author tells us that being poor means worrying about problems you can’t fix all the time? Or at least, that you believe you can never fix them? If you don’t have the $300 for the own part repair on your truck, there’s no point in worrying about it. If you truck breaks it breaks, it’s never going to recover unless you think of something else. Complaining that you don’t have $300 for even the home repai…

We know complaining doesn't fix any problem, but we can't help it.

Easier said to tell people to get on with their lives.

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#579

Post by wiseowise » Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 7:32 AM UTC

hippo22 wrote: post #545

dwedge wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its not uncommon to have the few worthwhile items you own being seized by bailifs to recoup debts, treasured heirlooms that cannot be replaced and have little monetary value so they do no impact to your debt. The hoarding of canned goods to avoid being unable to eat. As a teenager I worked at a bailiffs in the office typing up the paperwork. One case that stuck was me was where the debtor owed somewhere around £400…

[flagged]

> Whenever "the poor" are debated, it seems that people always assume they're totally incapable of helping themselves.

The point isn’t that you’re incapable of helping yourself, it is disproportionately harder to help yourself when you’re poor.

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#580

Post by 9rx » Sat, Nov 15, 2025, 7:33 AM UTC

simoncion wrote: post #513

9rx wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, but irrelevant. Suburban is a subset of urban, not the other way around — originally referring to the portion of an urban area found outside of the wall. The physical walls aren't often found anymore, but the term still refers to an urban area that surrounds where a wall might have been placed historically.

> Suburban is ... originally referring to... Like you said, this is irrelevant. Cities aren't planned or built like that, and really haven't been... since the founding of the USA, at the very latest. (If they were, the Brits would have had a much more difficult time capturing D.C. than they did.)

Nice history lesson that you've written for absolutely no reason, but we still don't know what there is other than rural and urban. Pointlessly pointing out obvious things like that there can be suburbs within urban areas, like there can be hamlets in rural areas, does not answer the question or serve any purpose whatsoever.