7 ms·

"They have life expectancies, security of food and shelter and rates of possession of consumer durables that mark them out as among the blessed of history." I

by jshen 16y ago

"They have life expectancies, security of food and shelter and rates of possession of consumer durables that mark them out as among the blessed of history." I think this guy has never walked down skid row in a big city. If we act like a whole subset of people don't exist we can make crazy claims like the poor are blessed.

tomjen3 16y ago
Try walking down Hackney-in-the-hole 250 years ago. The poor today really are fucking lucky.
- jshen 16y ago
  try going to pretty much any other industrial country. The poor of america are shit on in comparison.
TomOfTTB 16y ago
With all due respect you don't know what you're talking about. I grew up very poor. Not only were we on welfare but my mom would turn around and sell the food stamps to get money to buy booze. Yet I still had food, shelter, education and even a few incidental things like toys. There's plenty of assistance available to the poor in this country. What you are mistaking for poor are people with deeper problems. People who are drug addicted. People who have mental illness. And others who for whatever reason can't find a way to function in society. There is plenty to debate about the difference between the poor and the rich but don't mistake those living on the street for the poor in this country because they are something else
- jshen 16y ago
  a very large percentage of those that can't function are war veterans. I stand by my point that acting like those people don't exist leads to insane statements like the poor are blessed.
  - neworbit 16y ago
    Interesting, I hadn't heard that other than anecdotal "I am a vietnam vet please help" - what is that percentage?
    - jshen 16y ago
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-vete...
      - neworbit 16y ago
        Thanks! Now I wonder what percentage of vets are below the poverty line vs outright homeless. I know people who joined up because they were poor to begin with... and in general it seems to have worked out pretty well for them, though none of 'em are particularly rich. But maybe these are the "good work ethic" slice of the bunch? I have nothing but anecdotal evidence.
        jshen 16y ago
        Your assuming that the environment has little impact on people. I'm making the opposite point, war screws people up. Then we try to act like they don't exist or that they are just lazy.
- boredguy8 16y ago
  With all due respect, you're one data point. While not minimizing the hardships you went through as a poor child, you were fortunate compared to some. As one report on Los Angeles' health concludes: "On the other hand, if we were to completely eliminate all deaths due to homicide, which is the leading cause of premature death among black males, this would likely have the greatest impact on reducing the disparity in life expectancy between black males and males of other racial/ethnic groups, and would result in a gain of 14 times more life-years at birth for black males relative to white males." [1] "don't mistake those living on the street for the poor" Are they rich? They certainly qualify as poor, even if they also fall into other categories. And you can't simply say "they're poor because of their mental state." You cannot trivially isolate a single variable like mental health or economic status from others. Poor white people in the US generally have a markedly improved experience over poor minorities. For example, a 2010 article examining Toxics Release Inventory Facility (TRIF) locations found a high correlation between placement and ethnic minorities. They found that, "...every race or ethnicity variable is negative and statistically signiﬁcant, indicating that Census units with greater minority populations are closer to new TRIFs than are those tracts with greater proportions of non-Hispanic Whites." [2] So while I and others certainly appreciate your perspective and your experience, you ought probably be careful not to draw conclusions about others' experience as a result. [1] "Life Expectancy in Los Angeles County", from the Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology, July 2010 [2] "Justice for All? A Cross-Time Analysis of Toxics Release Inventory Facility Location" from the Review of Policy Research, January 2010. This study is particularly informative on the issue of environmental justice because it handles carefully the question of "market rationality" for environmental justice. As many had pointed out, "Individuals making conscious trade-offs to accept more environmental risk in exchange for some desired attribute, such as lower housing prices, does not have the same implications as does the situation in which environmental harms are imposed on existing residents." This study is an attempt to answer the "chicken-or-egg" question of whether environmental harms are imposed on ethnic minorities or if instead poor ethnic minorities make an economic tradeoff decision.
  - TomOfTTB 16y ago
    Your logic is flawed here. You're basically saying the author's statement that the "poor are blessed in industrialized nations" is incorrect because of people who are not blessed for reasons other than simply being poor. By that same logic we could say the poor are overwhelmingly blessed because some people who are technically poor live in mansions with their wealthy parents. That's why we use generalizations in theoretical discussions. The author uses the generalization of "the poor" as people who are poor but have no other serious problems or benefits. In that context he's right. And my experience confirms that because the aide was there and available to anyone who wanted it. I wasn't special. As I said just the opposite was true. My Mom squandered much of the Aide given to us and we STILL got by. So in a general sense others should be able to as well. Finally as others have pointed out here the author's point is wealth is relative. Even those living on the street of the United States are tons better than many of the people living in third world countries.
- jshen 16y ago
  "I grew up very poor" ... "Yet I still had food, shelter, education and even a few incidental things like toys." Your definition of "very poor" is not the same as mine. What is your word for someone that doesn't have stable shelter and stable food? There are a lot of people in this country that don't have those things.
presidentender 16y ago
You're missing the point - the author says that poverty is relative. Our poor in the US or the EU are far better off than their grandparents were, better off even than the kings of yore due to technological progress. How much do you think a plantation owner in 1840 would've paid for air conditioning? How much would your father have paid for an iPad?
- jshen 16y ago
  "better off even than the kings of yore due to technological progress" This is absurd. It's based on the false premise that consumerism equals happiness, dignity, well being, and a fulfilling life. And there is still the problem that you guys are disappearing a whole class of people, a large percentage of whom are war veterans, to make yourselves feel better.
  - dean 16y ago
    Despite the unfortunate reference to the iPad, the poster has a point. We are better off than the 'kings of yore'. We have access to better housing, heat and air conditioning, abundant and varied food, easy and affordable access to education and medical care and medicine, electric light, personal transportation, personal security and the list goes on. It's not just consumer goods -- we have more of everything including health and well-being, and most likely happiness. How many people back then (other than a king) could hope to be anything but a serf and tenant farmer in their lives. I think personal fulfilment would have been in short supply.
    - jshen 16y ago
      only if by "better off" you mean we have more material possessions. "easy and affordable access to education and medical care and medicine" Most of your points are fair, but I don't this one is. "we have more of everything including health and well-being" How are you measuring well being? I'll bet a lot of people today, even those that are upper middle class, have equal or more stress. "How many people back then " Why compare america of today with monarchies of the past? Why not compare america of today with other industrialized countries? In terms of the plight of the poor we look pretty bad compared to other modern countries.
lotusleaf1987 16y ago
It's sad that you're one of the few who can see this and yet the other replies to your comment seem to give bizarre rationalizations of why it's okay to be poor. I don't think there's an excuse at all. Go to Denmark or Canada or a number of other countries and they've all but wiped out poverty. It's a pathetic rationalization that poverty "is relative." The more I read HN the more tired I get reading these over-used libertarian fanatical positions. The poor are not just drug addicts, there are many people who've had much fewer opportunities and never had a chance to go to college or get an education. There are many many people who fall into "the working poor" look at any number of people stuck in dead end jobs but with little to no ability to get out of the situation. Meritocracy is a complete myth. The poor work the hardest and most dangerous jobs and the most hours. If all it took was 'hard work' then these people would be filthy rich by now. But obviously not all work is valued the same.
- davidw 16y ago
  One thing that gets people in the US is medical problems. Just as an anecdote, I got a couple of sinus infections back to back on my recent trip to the US. Two doctor visits plus antibiotics cost me more than 250 dollars out of pocket. And that's for a relatively trifling problem. Imagine getting hit with serious medical bills at the very same time your ability to work has been seriously diminished.
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    I had my appendix out a couple years ago, and it cost me around $2000, and this was with some really fantastic insurance. If uninsured, I would have gotten a bill for around $25,000. Had I been in a different point in my life, I would have been ruined financially.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    This is widely believed, but only due to a deeply flawed study which got a lot of press. New statistics following the publication of that article have shown this pretty conclusively. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/will-health-care-reform-reduce-medical-bankruptcies/68304/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/will-hea...
yummyfajitas 16y ago
I think you've never bothered to look up statistics on the poor. In the 1970's, the bottom 10% only had a pot to piss in - they lacked a toilet. Today, the poor live in houses with 2 rooms/person, drive at least one car (70% or so), sometimes two cars (25%), and have all manner of consumer goods not available even to the middle class of 1970. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Not only that, but the poor manage to achieve all of this, for the most part, without even working. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf There might be a small number of poor people in bad situations, but the majority of the poor are doing very well by historical standards. Please go read the actual numbers before criticizing others who have already done so.
- jshen 16y ago
  your doing the same thing as the other, magically disappearing a whole class of people. Please come meet me in Los Angeles and I'll show you the poor. They don't have a house, a car, or any consumer goods. As I said before, a very large percentage of the people I'm talking about are war veterans. They are people that were capable of functioning in society before we used them up and spit them out. Disappearing them from our minds doesn't make them go away in real life.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Ah, I see our disagreement. The author and I are pointing out that most of the 10% or so of society classified by the government as "poor" are doing extremely well. I guess you aren't dispute this at all. You are saying there is a much narrower subset (I'm guessing veterans and others with mental illness?) which is not doing well. I.e., "crazy people have problems, and many are also poor." Very true. But that isn't what the author is discussing. No one is claiming the mentally ill don't exist.
    - jshen 16y ago
      right, we're using different definitions, but my complaint is that people are brushing them off as "mentally ill". Many of them, 1 in 4 according to some studies, are military veterans. These are people that were not mentally ill prior to things like us sending them to war so we can sit in our comfy startups. We now want to disappear them from our minds by implying that they are innately broken (mentally ill). I'm a veteran so maybe I care more about this than most.

by jshen 16y ago

tomjen3 16y ago

Try walking down Hackney-in-the-hole 250 years ago. The poor today really are fucking lucky.

jshen 16y ago
try going to pretty much any other industrial country. The poor of america are shit on in comparison.

TomOfTTB 16y ago

With all due respect you don't know what you're talking about. I grew up very poor. Not only were we on welfare but my mom would turn around and sell the food stamps to get money to buy booze. Yet I still had food, shelter, education and even a few incidental things like toys. There's plenty of assistance available to the poor in this country. What you are mistaking for poor are people with deeper problems. People who are drug addicted. People who have mental illness. And others who for whatever reason can't find a way to function in society. There is plenty to debate about the difference between the poor and the rich but don't mistake those living on the street for the poor in this country because they are something else

jshen 16y ago
a very large percentage of those that can't function are war veterans. I stand by my point that acting like those people don't exist leads to insane statements like the poor are blessed.
- neworbit 16y ago
  Interesting, I hadn't heard that other than anecdotal "I am a vietnam vet please help" - what is that percentage?
  - jshen 16y ago
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-veterans_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-11-07-homeless-vete...
    - neworbit 16y ago
      Thanks! Now I wonder what percentage of vets are below the poverty line vs outright homeless. I know people who joined up because they were poor to begin with... and in general it seems to have worked out pretty well for them, though none of 'em are particularly rich. But maybe these are the "good work ethic" slice of the bunch? I have nothing but anecdotal evidence.
      - jshen 16y ago
        Your assuming that the environment has little impact on people. I'm making the opposite point, war screws people up. Then we try to act like they don't exist or that they are just lazy.
boredguy8 16y ago
With all due respect, you're one data point. While not minimizing the hardships you went through as a poor child, you were fortunate compared to some. As one report on Los Angeles' health concludes: "On the other hand, if we were to completely eliminate all deaths due to homicide, which is the leading cause of premature death among black males, this would likely have the greatest impact on reducing the disparity in life expectancy between black males and males of other racial/ethnic groups, and would result in a gain of 14 times more life-years at birth for black males relative to white males." [1] "don't mistake those living on the street for the poor" Are they rich? They certainly qualify as poor, even if they also fall into other categories. And you can't simply say "they're poor because of their mental state." You cannot trivially isolate a single variable like mental health or economic status from others. Poor white people in the US generally have a markedly improved experience over poor minorities. For example, a 2010 article examining Toxics Release Inventory Facility (TRIF) locations found a high correlation between placement and ethnic minorities. They found that, "...every race or ethnicity variable is negative and statistically signiﬁcant, indicating that Census units with greater minority populations are closer to new TRIFs than are those tracts with greater proportions of non-Hispanic Whites." [2] So while I and others certainly appreciate your perspective and your experience, you ought probably be careful not to draw conclusions about others' experience as a result. [1] "Life Expectancy in Los Angeles County", from the Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology, July 2010 [2] "Justice for All? A Cross-Time Analysis of Toxics Release Inventory Facility Location" from the Review of Policy Research, January 2010. This study is particularly informative on the issue of environmental justice because it handles carefully the question of "market rationality" for environmental justice. As many had pointed out, "Individuals making conscious trade-offs to accept more environmental risk in exchange for some desired attribute, such as lower housing prices, does not have the same implications as does the situation in which environmental harms are imposed on existing residents." This study is an attempt to answer the "chicken-or-egg" question of whether environmental harms are imposed on ethnic minorities or if instead poor ethnic minorities make an economic tradeoff decision.
- TomOfTTB 16y ago
  Your logic is flawed here. You're basically saying the author's statement that the "poor are blessed in industrialized nations" is incorrect because of people who are not blessed for reasons other than simply being poor. By that same logic we could say the poor are overwhelmingly blessed because some people who are technically poor live in mansions with their wealthy parents. That's why we use generalizations in theoretical discussions. The author uses the generalization of "the poor" as people who are poor but have no other serious problems or benefits. In that context he's right. And my experience confirms that because the aide was there and available to anyone who wanted it. I wasn't special. As I said just the opposite was true. My Mom squandered much of the Aide given to us and we STILL got by. So in a general sense others should be able to as well. Finally as others have pointed out here the author's point is wealth is relative. Even those living on the street of the United States are tons better than many of the people living in third world countries.
jshen 16y ago
"I grew up very poor" ... "Yet I still had food, shelter, education and even a few incidental things like toys." Your definition of "very poor" is not the same as mine. What is your word for someone that doesn't have stable shelter and stable food? There are a lot of people in this country that don't have those things.

presidentender 16y ago

You're missing the point - the author says that poverty is relative. Our poor in the US or the EU are far better off than their grandparents were, better off even than the kings of yore due to technological progress. How much do you think a plantation owner in 1840 would've paid for air conditioning? How much would your father have paid for an iPad?

jshen 16y ago
"better off even than the kings of yore due to technological progress" This is absurd. It's based on the false premise that consumerism equals happiness, dignity, well being, and a fulfilling life. And there is still the problem that you guys are disappearing a whole class of people, a large percentage of whom are war veterans, to make yourselves feel better.
- dean 16y ago
  Despite the unfortunate reference to the iPad, the poster has a point. We are better off than the 'kings of yore'. We have access to better housing, heat and air conditioning, abundant and varied food, easy and affordable access to education and medical care and medicine, electric light, personal transportation, personal security and the list goes on. It's not just consumer goods -- we have more of everything including health and well-being, and most likely happiness. How many people back then (other than a king) could hope to be anything but a serf and tenant farmer in their lives. I think personal fulfilment would have been in short supply.
  - jshen 16y ago
    only if by "better off" you mean we have more material possessions. "easy and affordable access to education and medical care and medicine" Most of your points are fair, but I don't this one is. "we have more of everything including health and well-being" How are you measuring well being? I'll bet a lot of people today, even those that are upper middle class, have equal or more stress. "How many people back then " Why compare america of today with monarchies of the past? Why not compare america of today with other industrialized countries? In terms of the plight of the poor we look pretty bad compared to other modern countries.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago

It's sad that you're one of the few who can see this and yet the other replies to your comment seem to give bizarre rationalizations of why it's okay to be poor. I don't think there's an excuse at all. Go to Denmark or Canada or a number of other countries and they've all but wiped out poverty. It's a pathetic rationalization that poverty "is relative." The more I read HN the more tired I get reading these over-used libertarian fanatical positions. The poor are not just drug addicts, there are many people who've had much fewer opportunities and never had a chance to go to college or get an education. There are many many people who fall into "the working poor" look at any number of people stuck in dead end jobs but with little to no ability to get out of the situation. Meritocracy is a complete myth. The poor work the hardest and most dangerous jobs and the most hours. If all it took was 'hard work' then these people would be filthy rich by now. But obviously not all work is valued the same.

davidw 16y ago
One thing that gets people in the US is medical problems. Just as an anecdote, I got a couple of sinus infections back to back on my recent trip to the US. Two doctor visits plus antibiotics cost me more than 250 dollars out of pocket. And that's for a relatively trifling problem. Imagine getting hit with serious medical bills at the very same time your ability to work has been seriously diminished.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  I had my appendix out a couple years ago, and it cost me around $2000, and this was with some really fantastic insurance. If uninsured, I would have gotten a bill for around $25,000. Had I been in a different point in my life, I would have been ruined financially.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  This is widely believed, but only due to a deeply flawed study which got a lot of press. New statistics following the publication of that article have shown this pretty conclusively. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/will-health-care-reform-reduce-medical-bankruptcies/68304/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/will-hea...

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I think you've never bothered to look up statistics on the poor. In the 1970's, the bottom 10% only had a pot to piss in - they lacked a toilet. Today, the poor live in houses with 2 rooms/person, drive at least one car (70% or so), sometimes two cars (25%), and have all manner of consumer goods not available even to the middle class of 1970. http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf Not only that, but the poor manage to achieve all of this, for the most part, without even working. http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2007.pdf There might be a small number of poor people in bad situations, but the majority of the poor are doing very well by historical standards. Please go read the actual numbers before criticizing others who have already done so.

jshen 16y ago
your doing the same thing as the other, magically disappearing a whole class of people. Please come meet me in Los Angeles and I'll show you the poor. They don't have a house, a car, or any consumer goods. As I said before, a very large percentage of the people I'm talking about are war veterans. They are people that were capable of functioning in society before we used them up and spit them out. Disappearing them from our minds doesn't make them go away in real life.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Ah, I see our disagreement. The author and I are pointing out that most of the 10% or so of society classified by the government as "poor" are doing extremely well. I guess you aren't dispute this at all. You are saying there is a much narrower subset (I'm guessing veterans and others with mental illness?) which is not doing well. I.e., "crazy people have problems, and many are also poor." Very true. But that isn't what the author is discussing. No one is claiming the mentally ill don't exist.
  - jshen 16y ago
    right, we're using different definitions, but my complaint is that people are brushing them off as "mentally ill". Many of them, 1 in 4 according to some studies, are military veterans. These are people that were not mentally ill prior to things like us sending them to war so we can sit in our comfy startups. We now want to disappear them from our minds by implying that they are innately broken (mentally ill). I'm a veteran so maybe I care more about this than most.