“Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken” • Hacker News Board

Re: “Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

#91

Post by TheSpiceIsLife » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 9:30 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #71

rayiner wrote: post #18

This bit is great: > We’re aware that we are not “having kids”, we’re “breeding”. We have kids for much the same reasons that I imagine rich people do. Urge to propagate and all. Nobody likes poor people procreating, but they judge abortion even harder.

I don't understand how individuals can bring new, innocent life into this world... With an uncertain economic outlook, or without at least a stable financial base to care for them. #Edit: I'd honestly like to hear some comments/feedback about the individuals that disagree with what I said above.

Probably because people aren't rational actors.

Additionally, having read a bit of history recently[1][2] it seems there never has been a time where economic certainty, or any certainty about the future, was actually a thing for the majority of people on the planet, throughout all time.

Personal anecdote: I had said this very same thing for years until I had my first child. Interesting how perspectives.

1. The Better Angels of our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined - Steven Pinker

2. Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World - Deirdre N. McCloskey

Edit: I didn't downvote you, by the way.

Re: “Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

#92

Post by joelhooks » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 9:31 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #74

joelhooks wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to call bullshit on this, as I currently rest well above a single order of magnitude beyond minimum wage. Life is awesome. I own a business. We have health coverage. We eat high quality nutrient rich food. We take our 4 kids to a lake house for a month every year. I work when I feel like it. We travel globally. I've got more options than I ever thought possible. Sure, sitting around getting loaded smoking c…

Okay, but if you can afford not to work ("I work when I feel like it") you're not in the middle class, you're upper class. Compared to solidly middle class people, your life is also much better.

No doubt. I've experienced the spectrum.

Re: “Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

#93

Post by mjfl » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 9:42 PM UTC

forthefuture wrote: post #89

mjfl wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree. In the circumstance that all those bad things happen, you are obviously better off if you did save. Get an infection and can't afford antibiotics, you could possibly die, whereas you could survive if you had money. Kid grows up and you can't pay for college, "Oh honey, we didn't expect you to be so smart so we spent the money on burgers."

I don't think it's as common as you think for parents to pay for college.

My point remains that it's better to have some money saved up for it than to have nothing.

Re: “Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

#94

Post by nkzednan » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 9:48 PM UTC

(Note, I'm a software engineer in California but this is based on what I've heard from others/read)

Something else that I've heard from other people/read about is how basically it takes money to save money.

For instance, most of us have bank accounts that don't charge any monthly fee and we're fine having to keep a minimum of $25 or so in the account. But if you're poor, that's a lot of money to keep locked up, which is why my guess is that a lot of people don't have bank accounts. They then have to cash their checks at places that take a good sized bite out of each pay check. People living pay check to pay check also likely can't wait the few days it takes for a bank to clear checks.

It seems like there's got to be a better way of paying people who don't have a bank account so that they can access the money right away and don't have to pay fees.

From what I've heard, you can be on food stamps/other assistance but if you cross a certain line in terms of income you can't qualify anymore, instead of gradually diminishing as one makes more.

Re: “Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

#95

Post by fragmede » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 9:49 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #60

[deleted] wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

> But the 23,000+ hours I've invested into becoming skilled at my work also play a huge part It's not like the poor people don't work; it's just that their skills aren't additive in the same way as a programmer's are. Serving in McDonalds for 23,000 hours doesn't make you a better server. For them, it's just a job, not a career. I can't imagine what hell my life would be if I didn't have a feeling I was building towa…

> doesn't make you a better server.

Serving in McDonalds likely doesn't take 23k hours to be passable at it, but someone with 0-hours on the job is not going to be able to punch in a Bacon Quarter Pounder, no cheese, extra pickles, no patty, extra bacon or whatever weird combination a customer wants without some help. Similarly, a good waiter/server's short-term memory has much more practice and is much better than mine. (Whether you respect them for this and think they deserve a living wage for it is a different discussion.)

My point though, is that time spent with a specific programming language, as a proxy for skill with a particular language, is not an additive skill and is something you need keep learning and keep up with. There are still COBOL jobs out there but the market for them has possibly peaked. How's the market for C++ application developers since the web became all the rage? Hell, how's the market for web development now that we've moved from web and now mobile is the 'in' thing? As a programmer, are you fluent in Java? Javascript? Rails? in Python? in Golang? In Linux kernel C? Perl? Swift?

Which is to say your salary as a programmer is much better than a server at McDonalds, but learn from history, don't become complacent, what you know today will soon be obsolete.

Re: “Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

#96

Post by Retra » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 9:51 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #56

Retra wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food, housing, and small luxuries are necessities. They are not a recipe for a good life unless you are pacified by trite platitudes. Wealth is relative, but progress is not. What happens when you get old? What happens why somebody else needs your help? What happens if you have a good idea and nobody to listen to it?

> small luxuries are necessities By definition luxuries are not necessities. If people can do without them fine (millions of people don't drink or smoke), they are not necessities. > They are not a recipe for a good life unless you are pacified by trite platitudes. Then what is, which money could buy? I make a lot more money than that, but my life doesn't sound any better.

You have security. That is what money buys. And you may consider that a luxury, but that isn't how people who don't have it feel about it.

Re: “Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

#97

Post by Retra » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 9:53 PM UTC

ahomescu1 wrote: post #68

gargarplex wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Social inequality without serving a conscious purpose

I think the fundamental question here is: what is the natural state, equality or inequality? If inequality is the natural state (which I think it is), it can't be a "purpose", it just exists.

That is not a fundamental question. We don't care if it is natural or not, all we care about is whether it is acceptable or not. If it is not acceptable, you need a reason to ignore it.

Re: “Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

#98

Post by Chinjut » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 9:56 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #56

Retra wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food, housing, and small luxuries are necessities. They are not a recipe for a good life unless you are pacified by trite platitudes. Wealth is relative, but progress is not. What happens when you get old? What happens why somebody else needs your help? What happens if you have a good idea and nobody to listen to it?

> small luxuries are necessities By definition luxuries are not necessities. If people can do without them fine (millions of people don't drink or smoke), they are not necessities. > They are not a recipe for a good life unless you are pacified by trite platitudes. Then what is, which money could buy? I make a lot more money than that, but my life doesn't sound any better.

> By definition luxuries are not necessities. If people can do without them fine (millions of people don't drink or smoke), they are not necessities.

I daresay, it's a necessity for human beings to experience less than complete absence of all pleasures in life. Many of the things described as "small luxuries" are individually forgoable, sure, but for one to live their life denying themselves the satisfaction of any expense anyone else might do without, experiencing nothing but the bare toil and drudgery required for physical survival, is a kind of mental torture no one should be expected to bear.

If a drink now and then (or "junk food" instead, or movies, or videogames instead, or nice clothes, or this, or that, or the other thing, whatever the particular indulgences are that floats one boat) is what it takes to feel like a proper human being, it's worth it. Poor people like the same things anyone likes, and I cast no aspersions on their allowing themselves joy.

(Also, yes, millions of people don't smoke, but at the same time, millions of people wish no longer to smoke but have great difficulty quitting, because it is physically addictive (rather famously), and though one might say no one should ever have picked up the habit in the first place, it's not uncommon for perfectly fine people to have made suboptimal decisions at at least one point in their life...)

Re: “Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

#99

Post by swatow » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 10:03 PM UTC

ejk314 wrote: post #80

swatow wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you answered me with this quote confirms something that I suspected but wasn't sure enough to put down in my first post: The author is being unclear about whether the statements she's making are things she claims are true, or things she claims poor people (incorrectly) think are true. These are two very different things, and mixing them together leads to confusion and error.

I feel like she was pretty clear on that point; the whole first post was her explanation of what she was thinking/feeling when she made 'poor' decisions. The second portion, in response to criticism, was her justification of that mindset.

I didn't see much clarity on this issue in either part. Furthermore, the responses to my post are evenly split too: bdcravens, mrow84, chaostheory and twisties vs monk_e_boy, rayiner and x0x0.

Re: “Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

#100

Post by ejk314 » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 10:04 PM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #23

I started to read "cell phone", "car" and "kids" and stopped caring. I started with very few money. Then I manage to have my own company. Then I got broken after the war in Mali. And when you are young with no money, you don't need a cell phone, you don't need a car, and you don't make children. You get your life in order, then you go for the expensive stuff. People think it's normal to have these. Guys, it's not eve…

Do you want us to say, "Congratulations, you are clearly an extraordinary person for overcoming greater poverty than the author and we should all defer to your wisdom." ? Fine. I've said it. Let's move on.

Everything you've mentioned is how you avoid getting stuck in poverty - and all of what you've said seems like sound advice. But what happens when you've already made many mistakes, when you're already in debt and have children to take care of? I think that's where the author is starting from. She's trying to explain why she continued to make terrible choices when she became poor; not trying to justify her decisions, just trying to explain her faulty logic.

Ultimately, it would be better if we never had people get stuck in poverty. But what do we do once they're stuck? Should we just give up on them? Yeah, they fucked up. But if they feel like there's no way for them to get out of the hole they've dug, why should they even try?