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

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

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 136 posts

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

#111

Post by Mz »

Excerpt: At one chain I was required to sign a contract stating that I was an at-will employee, that I would be part-time with no benefits, and that if I took another job without permission I would be subject to termination because the company expected me to be able to come in whenever they found it necessary.

And yes, this is legal.

Yeah, that sort of crap needs to stop.

Also, we need to make it possible for average folks to become homeowners again. Also, this Obamacare crap: I am not a fan. Make it a government benefit or butt the hell out of whether or not I buy insurance. Thanks.

(In case you missed it, I have been homeless for three years and counting. I think I have more hope than this woman describes having, but I got that by walking away from my corporate job. I was able to do that because I was a military wife for a lot of years. So I still alimony and, in theory, access to free medical care. I still have things that are kind of a throw back to the 1950's way of life. Plus six years of college and other assets that have given me maneuvering room that most poor people lack.)

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

#112

Post by uiri »

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…

> 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.

I think it is called "cash". Turning a piece of paper (ie: a paycheque) into cash costs money and so does turning cash into a piece of paper (ie: a money order to pay rent or a utility bill). The banking system isn't free. It is much more profitable for the bank to prey on the poor who have no capital to offer up and who have no time to research their different banking options than it is for a bank to offer affordable services to low-income customers. Cash costs money to mint and print as well but that's hidden in seigniorage, taxes and inflation.

There are payroll cards (in lieu of cheques) for employees without bank accounts but, since the card issuer's true customer is the employer, they often hit employees with high fees for everything which end up costing more than a bank account would.

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

#113

Post by morgante »

pharke wrote: post #109
morgante wrote: post #79

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. 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 app…

> 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.

I never claimed my finances were similar to someone earning $10/hour. Just my lifestyle. (The fact that I don't have much to spend money on is part of the reason I've managed to accumulate extensive savings.)

> university life generally comes accompanied by prepaid meal plans, health insurance, counselling, housing, on campus services and student discounts

They do have housing taken care of, but that $4000 is used for meals. While those fringe benefits are tangible, I don't think they make a major lifestyle difference considering that most never use health or counseling services

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

#114

Post by swatow »

pharke wrote: post #106
swatow wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/…

I think that the places I listed have more in common with each other than with the US with regard to welfare.

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

#115

Post by ahomescu1 »

Retra wrote: post #108
ahomescu1 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just because there are some things that can be fought doesn't mean that all things you/we deem "unacceptable" can be eliminated. Some things always exist, like the first law of thermodynamics (one example) and drug use (people deemed drug use "unacceptable" and initiated the "War on Drugs", and look how well that turned out).

Not everything in life is under our control.

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

#116

Post by Retra »

ahomescu1 wrote: post #115
Retra wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just because there are some things that can be fought doesn't mean that all things you/we deem "unacceptable" can be eliminated. Some things always exist, like the first law of thermodynamics (one example) and drug use (people deemed drug use "unacceptable" and initiated the "War on Drugs", and look how well that turned out). Not everything in life is under our control.

No, but it doesn't mean they _can't be_ either. Which is my whole damn point: naturalness is irrelevant.

>Not everything in life is under our control.

Who cares!? Are you going to spend your time repeating trivially useless facts? You have said nothing at all that allows you to distinguish between what can and can't be controlled. 'Naturalness' isn't it, for what should be obvious reasons.

You do not know what is under your control until you try to control it.

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

#117

Post by Rapzid »

rayiner wrote: post #88
Rapzid wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Learning will help you in life. I'm not sure kids need a better reason to study and try to do well in school. Knowledge is power and all that. Not going to college doesn't negate that. Hell, I didn't and I'm sure tons of people on HN didn't even do college and I'm doing very well. I'm grateful for the public education system and the "free" education I recieved.

That's not a rational argument, it's an emotional one, and I'm not sure if I believe it.

My argument is that primary through high school education has value outside of getting the educated into college. I'm.. Unsure why you're not sure you believe that.

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

#118

Post by pen2l »

rayiner wrote: post #85
zo1 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My wife and I are ambitious people, "planners" from childhood who got the grades, got the degrees, and got the high-paying jobs. But our daughter, who was, um, "unplanned," brings us more joy than any of those accomplishments. And the wonderful things about human existence is that having kids and making families is accessible to almost everyone.

I suggest people have a baby as soon as they can -- early 20s. The later you do it, the more problems occur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#mediaviewer/File:... This pictures explain it nicely. But really, there are a lot of other reasons, scientific literature has a lot to say about that. Don't do it your 30s, do it in your 20s.

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

#119

Post by ahomescu1 »

Retra wrote: post #116
ahomescu1 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because there are some things that can be fought doesn't mean that all things you/we deem "unacceptable" can be eliminated. Some things always exist, like the first law of thermodynamics (one example) and drug use (people deemed drug use "unacceptable" and initiated the "War on Drugs", and look how well that turned out). Not everything in life is under our control.

No, but it doesn't mean they _can't be_ either. Which is my whole damn point: naturalness is irrelevant. >Not everything in life is under our control. Who cares!? Are you going to spend your time repeating trivially useless facts? You have said nothing at all that allows you to distinguish between what can and can't be controlled. 'Naturalness' isn't it, for what should be obvious reasons. You do not know what is und…

> Which is my whole damn point: naturalness is irrelevant.

I disagree. Man-made phenomena can all be fought and reversed (so it's worth trying), but not all natural ones can (so it can be worth trying to fight them, but one must also know when to give up).

This started with the statement "Social inequality without serving a conscious purpose", which implies (or at least that's how I interpreted it) that social inequality is some man-made phenomenon, and we'd all be equal if not for some evil overlords "keeping us down". I disagree with this theory.

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

#120

Post by nitrogen »

morgante wrote: post #113
pharke wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 app…

> 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. I never claimed my finances were similar to someone earning $10/hour. Just my lifestyle. (The fact that I don't have much to spend money on is part of the reason I've managed to accumulate extensive savings.) > university life gen…

You're probably right about day-to-day lifestyle differences being rather small between surviving poor and thriving middle class. The biggest difference is in the exceptions, both positive and negative. Someone just getting by won't have the spare cash or leave time to take a vacation, and a single disaster could put them on the streets if they don't have family or friends to turn to (which can feel just as shameful as being on the streets). The other major difference is psychological: the feeling of being trapped in a precarious situation.
Post reply on HN