4 ms·

Are you choosing watching TV for $70/month as an example of an "expensive thing"? Living in poverty doesn't mean that you get should judged so harshly for mild

by vore 7y ago

Are you choosing watching TV for $70/month as an example of an "expensive thing"? Living in poverty doesn't mean that you get should judged so harshly for mild discretionary spending to make your life less of a hellhole.

tathougies 7y ago
> mild discretionary spending If the claim is that those living below the poverty line are going hungry (i.e., "there's no way to penny pinch when you're at the bottom", then claiming $70 (which can buy a lot of groceries) is 'mild discretionary spending' is incredibly disingenuous.
- vore 7y ago
  Most members of the middle class would classify it as mild spending, so I don't see anything disingenuous about my claim. Groceries are not fungible for entertainment, and if you choose to spend a reasonable by middle-class standards amount on it you shouldn't be punished with misery and people tut-tutting at you for it. Furthermore, I don't know what your point of revising the poverty line downwards is, apart from to tell people that they should be satisfied that their life isn't worse.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    > Furthermore, I don't know what your point of revising the poverty line downwards is, apart from to tell people that they should be satisfied that their life isn't worse. My point is that there should be various levels of poverty so comparisons can be made apples-to-apples. There is an income range where people cannot afford food, and there is an income range where people can afford food but cannot achieve a certain standard of living, etc. These need to be distinguished to make intelligent policy points. > Most members of the middle class would classify it as mild spending, so I don't see anything disingenuous about my claim. And many members of the upper class would say having a personal nanny is mild spending, but that seems ludicrous to literally everyone else. Luckily, my statement that 'If you cannot afford <insert basic need>, then <X> is a luxury' is a statement that could apply independent of the economic class of the speaker. > Groceries are not fungible for entertainment, Yes they are. I do not have cable so that I can purchase more food which I find more entertaining than vapid television shows. Also, consumeristic entertainment is not a human need. I will grant that humans need some level of entertainment. Luckily, libraries have free videos which are woefully underused. The radio is free, as is broadcast television. Also, humans have entertained themselves for literally as long as anyone can remember. Look, the guy I replied to made a point about 'middle-' and 'lower-class' people, by claiming there's no way to penny pinch when you're at the bottom. I pointed out that, by the federal standards, those at the bottom (i.e, in poverty) are spending about $800 a year on cable (based on cable rates in my area, which may not be representative, but whatever). Thus, it seems clear that there are ways to penny pinch at the bottom. I'm not sure what is controversial about this statement. There are clearly ways to entertain oneself reasonably without cable, as I and countless others demonstrate.

by vore 7y ago

tathougies 7y ago

> mild discretionary spending If the claim is that those living below the poverty line are going hungry (i.e., "there's no way to penny pinch when you're at the bottom", then claiming $70 (which can buy a lot of groceries) is 'mild discretionary spending' is incredibly disingenuous.

vore 7y ago
Most members of the middle class would classify it as mild spending, so I don't see anything disingenuous about my claim. Groceries are not fungible for entertainment, and if you choose to spend a reasonable by middle-class standards amount on it you shouldn't be punished with misery and people tut-tutting at you for it. Furthermore, I don't know what your point of revising the poverty line downwards is, apart from to tell people that they should be satisfied that their life isn't worse.
- tathougies 7y ago
  > Furthermore, I don't know what your point of revising the poverty line downwards is, apart from to tell people that they should be satisfied that their life isn't worse. My point is that there should be various levels of poverty so comparisons can be made apples-to-apples. There is an income range where people cannot afford food, and there is an income range where people can afford food but cannot achieve a certain standard of living, etc. These need to be distinguished to make intelligent policy points. > Most members of the middle class would classify it as mild spending, so I don't see anything disingenuous about my claim. And many members of the upper class would say having a personal nanny is mild spending, but that seems ludicrous to literally everyone else. Luckily, my statement that 'If you cannot afford <insert basic need>, then <X> is a luxury' is a statement that could apply independent of the economic class of the speaker. > Groceries are not fungible for entertainment, Yes they are. I do not have cable so that I can purchase more food which I find more entertaining than vapid television shows. Also, consumeristic entertainment is not a human need. I will grant that humans need some level of entertainment. Luckily, libraries have free videos which are woefully underused. The radio is free, as is broadcast television. Also, humans have entertained themselves for literally as long as anyone can remember. Look, the guy I replied to made a point about 'middle-' and 'lower-class' people, by claiming there's no way to penny pinch when you're at the bottom. I pointed out that, by the federal standards, those at the bottom (i.e, in poverty) are spending about $800 a year on cable (based on cable rates in my area, which may not be representative, but whatever). Thus, it seems clear that there are ways to penny pinch at the bottom. I'm not sure what is controversial about this statement. There are clearly ways to entertain oneself reasonably without cable, as I and countless others demonstrate.