“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”

#101

Post by DanBC » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 10:08 PM UTC

Chinjut wrote: post #98

morgante wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 e…

> because it is physically addictive (rather famously)

The physical addiction to nicotine is weak and lasts only a few weeks after stopping smoking.

The psychological addiction is very strong and that lasts much longer.

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

#102

Post by ahomescu1 » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 10:29 PM UTC

Retra wrote: post #97

ahomescu1 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first law of thermodynamics is not acceptable to me, yet it is natural and there's nothing I can do to change or ignore it (I was going to also give gravity as an example, but that one is more complicated).

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

#103

Post by intopieces » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 10:33 PM UTC

zo1 wrote: post #90

intopieces wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"intellectually lazy" is the correct term, even a bit polite. The idea behind this discussion is to look at why people are poor and to find ways - real, concrete, actionable ways - to improve the situation for the poor. Judgements based on personal experience do not fit within this discussion because they are entirely beside the point.

>" Judgements like 'well I was poor and now I'm rich - your story is fake' do not fit within this discussion because they are entirely beside the point. " That's obviously not what he is saying. Your doing way more than paraphrasing with that one.

I agree with you, so I changed it. I mischaracterized the person's comment. It was flippant and detracted from the point I was making.

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

#104

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 10:39 PM UTC

sametmax wrote: post #31

mercer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find that whenever I'm inclined to unsympathetic to the experience of another person, it's best to stop and remind myself that most people try their best to be good and happy, and care for those that are close to them, and that perhaps I'm just missing something. In this particular case, I'd argue that in many areas of the USA, cars are not a luxury, they're essential to moving around in the (to me) odd car-based i…

In theory yes, in practice, if you observe around you, people in debt are (very) often the ones with early children, loans, 200$ phone bills and more. I've seen plenty people having money problems, even caused by health problems or accidents. The ones to get out of it are the ones that stop spending in materials everybody else claim are mandatory untill they get better. And no, a cell phone is not mandatory. I lived…

[deleted]

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

#105

Post by pharke » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 10:45 PM UTC

gyardley wrote: post #24

Sounds like there's not much point in helping the poor, then, because they're just going to cock it up. I disagree - I think poor people are indeed capable of making good decisions and planning long-term - but what other point are you supposed to take away from her article?

The point I took away from the article seemed to be emphasized by these two statements that she made:

>And honestly, I wouldn’t even mind the degradations of my work life so much if the privileged and powerful were honest about it. If they just admitted that this is simply impossible.

>I’m not saying that someone doesn’t have to scrub the toilets around here. All I’m saying is that maybe instead of being grossed out by the very idea of toilets, you could thank the people doing the cleaning, because if not for them, you’d have to do it your damn self.

As a society, we make poverty into an inescapable and self-reinforcing cycle by attaching such a large stigma to it. The working poor are performing the work necessary to prop up the rest of our civilization while we spit on them for holding that station. We need to admit that that attitude is a problem and then we need to work to change it.

Any honest work can be rewarding in itself but only so long as it is recognized as honest and valuable work. Part of that recognition must be to receive fair compensation in the form of a living wage that covers expenses and allows for saving money towards the future but it also must include respect from the people that benefit by your services.

If we all had to invest our energies in producing, packaging, and preparing every morsel of food that passed our lips, cleaning and maintaining every part of our homes, workplaces, and vehicles, or have a hand in the creation or maintenance of any of the thousand other parts of our daily lives that must all exist and function in perfect order for us to simply get on with it, we'd all be less able to perform the other activities required for the continuance of our society in its present state.

This is simple division of labour, it's been with us since we chipped our first flint. The concept is a simple one: either we all survive or none of us survive. If we all invest even a little bit of effort in keeping that maxim at the front of our minds I believe we really can have a better world tomorrow and the day after that. It's only when you begin seeing people as expendable extras, just another replaceable part, that things begin to fall apart. We're all human, we all deserve a fair chance, and a second one, so help someone, say thank you, and stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

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

#106

Post by pharke » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 11:10 PM UTC

swatow wrote: post #29

mrow84 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is worth bearing in mind that this was, as noted at the start of the guardian piece, originally written as a reply on a forum. I don't think it is best to interpret what the author has written as a political argument about the objective "external" nature of reality, but rather as a personal, subjective statement of her own experience. I think if you reread it in that light then it'll probably seem much more reason…

It is very typical on the left for a personal account of the experience and psychology of being X to also be a political argument. Even if the author didn't intend it that way, it's certainly being used in the context of a political argument now. Note the replies by monk_e_boy and rayiner who take the statement on face value and argue that the payoff to education/savings is very small for poor people. I'm not saying…

Just for future reference, there are some extremely large differences between the social programs, how they are funded and administered, their scope and their availability in the countries you mentioned and among the countries that are members of the European Union.

As a citizen of one of those countries, hearing such a statement sounds very much like what I would imagine saying "Personally I favour American/Russian/Chinese/Indian style capitalism, it seems like a proven approach" would sound like to a resident of one of those countries.

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

#107

Post by gizmo686 » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 11:20 PM UTC

nkzednan wrote: post #94

(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…

I have no experience with this, but is it really that difficult for a business to pay its employees in cash if requested?

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

#108

Post by Retra » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 11:21 PM UTC

ahomescu1 wrote: post #102

Retra wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The first law of thermodynamics is not acceptable to me, yet it is natural and there's nothing I can do to change or ignore it (I was going to also give gravity as an example, but that one is more complicated).

So what? Small pox is natural and not acceptable to me, but hey: cured.

I'm glad that you found an excuse not to violate the laws of nature, but that doesn't mean you don't need a reason. It means you already have one.

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

#109

Post by pharke » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 11:37 PM UTC

morgante wrote: post #79

rcoder wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you honestly believe your lifestyle is no different from someone getting by on $10 per hour then I doubt there's much I can do to dissuade you. That being said, I still believe you're underestimating just how much more stability and confidence you have as a product of your income. I personally have very clear memories of the years where I worried constantly about finding and keeping enough work to pay rent, left p…

> If you honestly believe your lifestyle is no different from someone getting by on $10 per hour then I doubt there's much I can do to dissuade you. I guess maybe I'm just not allocating my money intelligently, but it really doesn't feel like my life is much better than "poor" young people. My university friends who survive on a $4000/semester stipend don't seem any less happy or contented than me. If anything, more…

I think someone flipping burgers at McDonalds would trade waking up thinking about work for waking up and thinking about how they'll feed their children any day of the week.

Also, the concept of being able to sustain your current lifestyle for a few years on your savings alone makes you sound like you're from another planet to someone making minimum wage with the savings and benefits that entails. It also doesn't appear to jive with your earlier statement about managing your money in such a way that your day to day finances would be in any way similar to someone earning $10 hourly. Where I come from, having enough money for beer and weed might mean you've got $20 to your name, not a savings account with enough for rent and expenses for the next 2 years.

Edit:

Your friends at university might appear to have a fairly similar lifestyle to yours on the measly sum of $4000 per semester given the fact that university life generally comes accompanied by prepaid meal plans, health insurance, counselling, housing, on campus services and student discounts. Such amenities are a far off dream to those below the poverty line.

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

#110

Post by jpindar » Sun, Jan 25, 2015, 11:37 PM UTC

Riseed wrote: post #36

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…

I do not understand the sentiment that poor people shouldn't have cell phones. Please tell me, how does one get a job in the US without a phone? And when one's job means being called in on short notice, how does one keep said job without having a phone?

You don't.

The people who consider cell phones or internet access* as luxuries are stuck in the past, probably in the time they grew up. They also often speak of flat screen TVs, laptop computers, and even microwave ovens as being major luxuries compared to the "normal" equivalent. (Can you even still get a CRT TV?)

*It's extremely common for several poor people to share internet access, but at least one of them has to be paying for it.