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

Being poor vs. being broke

blog.ctms.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 732 posts

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#641

Post by [deleted] »

Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #621
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…

Speaking with conservatively minded friends on this subject, they just shrug it off, smug in the knowledge that if they were in that situation they would immediately be able to pull themselves out of it. The fact that other people don't just do that is because they make poor decisions and therefore its all about 'personal responsibility'. There really is no convincing them otherwise.

[deleted]

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#642

Post by hippo22 »

bccdee wrote: post #636
hippo22 wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that, before the bike was collected and put up for auction, the debtor could have sold the bike to pay the debts. Then, once the bike was put up for auction, buyers could have bid on it if it was really worth more. Multiple people in this story had a financial incentive to profit from the bike, yet no one did. The only evidence we have of the bike's value is OP's claim. Does it not seem more likely that…

> the debtor could have sold the bike to pay the debts …so clearly the bike was worth more to them than its cash value. Again: They probably needed that bike for work. Losing their job will easily cost them more than $400. > yet no one did. The bailiff did, and the buyer did, and they were the only parties with agency in the situation. Doesn't surprise me.

[flagged]

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#644

Post by zahlman »

Atlas667 wrote: post #502
zahlman wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to think that were all equal in the eyes of the govt This is a goal, not a claim. > and if youre not on the same economic level it must be cause you're fundamentally different/flawed. This is a complete non sequitur, and is nothing like classical liberal thought.

> This is a goal, not a claim. Whose goal? Seriously. My claim is that liberalism is contradictory because it does not contain a class analysis. It uses the language of true equality but it cannot guarantee it. >This is a complete non sequitur, and is nothing like classical liberal thought. Did you read the article? The vein here is that liberalism, the official ideology of capital, is what is used to engage with ana…

> Whose goal? Seriously.

The goal of classical liberalism, obviously.

> My claim is that liberalism is contradictory because it does not contain a class analysis. It uses the language of true equality but it cannot guarantee it.

Classical liberalism understands the word "equality" to mean something different from what you think it means.

> Did you read the article?

I'm referring to your analysis, so the article is irrelevant. You're saying that classical liberalism says things that it does not say. The article is also not about classical liberalism.

> They use the myth of free markets, they use the myth of equality under law, they use the myth of economic freedom, they use the myth of liberty and justice for all.

None of these things are myths. They are, again, ideals. You commit the is-ought fallacy, blatantly and repeatedly.

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#645

Post by carlosjobim »

carlosjobim wrote: post #410
seba_dos1 wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because human mind is famously known for being extraordinarily good at getting out of self-destructive spiraling without external help, and that help is famously known for being provided to everyone who needs it regardless of their economic status. Also, chronic lack of money has absolutely no way to contribute to that occurring in the first place. /s

I get it. Everybody gets it. For some months, even years. But after a decade or so in such a situation, you must arrive at some sort of epiphany, look at your life and say "what the fuck?". And I don't think anybody is arguing that people shouldn't get help to get back on their feet. Rather that some people refuse to get back on their feet.

Unfortunately hackers made sure that the only reply below written by somebody who has actually been homeless was [flagged] and [dead]. That's the prevailing attitude towards poverty among the intellectuals. "Let's talk about them, not with them."

So I'll reply here, since I can't reply to a [dead]:

> And then what? You're 54 years old. No degree. No work history. Criminal conviction for drug possession. You're mentally ill and unmedicated. You realize for the first time you want to change your life. What's your first move? You have until your lucidity is interrupted by the next bout of mania and paranoid delusions to turn your life around.

You get medication and join the merchant navy as a mess hand. Not only do you get food, a safe bed, medical attention, safety, a salary, and companionship. You also get away from a destructive environment, drugs, threats, and all that shit that made life hell.

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#646

Post by Havoc »

Think growing up middle class is possibly a sort of sweet spot on this, especially combined with a slight jump up the ladder as one ages. Not burdened by the mental challenges described here but also not so disconnected from reality for "let them eat cake" syndrome of the really rich

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#647

Post by [deleted] »

vdqtp3 wrote: post #160
aduwah wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can give you an example. Single divorced mother with two kids. Working in social care for minimal wage, often earning lower amounts than the people she cares for. There are no savings, no relatives to help. Job change is an uncertainty that could introduce homelessness for the whole family if it doesn't work out. Not many options there. Now if you move this scenario out of rich countries it will get even worse

My mental poster child for "poor" is exactly this person. She had three kids (all in public school), lived in section 8 and worked part-time bagging groceries. The kids had nothing nice, clothes were all hand-me-down or donations with holes in them from being so old. No car, no health care, horrible dentistry to the point of becoming an emergency. They had a bigger TV than my middle class family, a premium channel pa…

[deleted]

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#648

Post by tmoertel »

hippo22 wrote: post #625
lurk2 wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whenever "the poor" are debated, it seems that people always assume they're totally incapable of helping themselves. You just argued the bike wouldn’t have been sufficient to pay the debt. How would the owner have helped himself by selling it?

OP's central claim was that the bike should have been able to cover the debt, but, due to systemic malice on the bailiff's part, the bike only covered small fraction of the debt. My point is that OP is simply over-valuing the bike. If you change OP's story to: the bailiff got a decent price for the bike and took a small fee for the service, it becomes a lot less outrageous.

The OP wrote that:

> [The bike] was sold at auction for £50. £35 bailiff fees for taking it there and £15 auctioneer fees, £0 off the debt.

If this claim is true, then I think most people will still find this conduct outrageous: How is it in the public interest for the baliff to take actions that harm both the debtor (by taking the personally valuable bike) and the public (by wasting from $15 to $50 of the public's money) to the benefit of only the baliff ($35) and auctioneer ($15)?

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#649

Post by the-mitr »

abnercoimbre wrote: post #523
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…

HN folks ought to watch Good Fortune ft. Keanu Reeves [0]. Still out in theaters. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKWndx83RwQ

Thanks for the reco

Re: Being poor vs. being broke

#650

Post by hippo22 »

tmoertel wrote: post #648
hippo22 wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP's central claim was that the bike should have been able to cover the debt, but, due to systemic malice on the bailiff's part, the bike only covered small fraction of the debt. My point is that OP is simply over-valuing the bike. If you change OP's story to: the bailiff got a decent price for the bike and took a small fee for the service, it becomes a lot less outrageous.

The OP wrote that: > [The bike] was sold at auction for £50. £35 bailiff fees for taking it there and £15 auctioneer fees, £0 off the debt. If this claim is true, then I think most people will still find this conduct outrageous: How is it in the public interest for the baliff to take actions that harm both the debtor (by taking the personally valuable bike) and the public (by wasting from $15 to $50 of the public's m…

Those fees don’t seem unreasonably high to me. I wouldn’t be surprised if the bailiff was operating at a loss given the time it takes to take possession and bring the goods to auction.

It’s in the public’s interest to have mechanisms to quickly process insolvency in a way that attempts to fairly value property. Auctions solve that. If debtors don’t like the outcome, then they should sell the good themselves before it comes to that. Having others sell your property for you is always going to incur an additional cost.

Post reply on HN