3 ms·

It's bizarre that y'all are willing to discount my experience solely because I happened to make two dollars more per hour and had slight support from family, ne

It's bizarre that y'all are willing to discount my experience solely because I happened to make two dollars more per hour and had slight support from family, neither of which come anywhere close to offsetting having to pay $500/month more in rent than the hypothetical to which I replied. Like, I'm under no illusion whatsoever that I wasn't fortunate. I'm endlessly grateful that I had a family eager and able to help out, and I know that there are plenty of people who don't have that much. That doesn't mean I didn't still struggle. It doesn't invalidate paying that rent, or making things work. It doesn't invalidate being in that situation two more times due to extended periods of unemployment, or when I was later making less than minimum wage and living off my savings working for a startup that ended up failing. I don't care that a bunch of FAANG employees think I'm too "privileged" to be able to speak about a situation that very much is comparable. Your downvotes do not invalidate my life experiences. Begrudgingly accepting help from family (that, mind you, added up to, what, $50/month, tops? Yeah, real fuckin' luxurious) does not invalidate my life experiences.

pphysch 6y ago
> It's bizarre that y'all are willing to discount my experience ...Your experience of having a family or network subsidize $100s per month in various costs, which you are using to try and explain anyway the enormous and well-established economic inequality problem in the US. Why? Can't you be grateful for your privileged position and not punch down?
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > having a family or network subsidize $100s per month As I've explained in multiple other follow-up comments now (EDIT: including, I now realize, in the exact comment to which you replied): it was not "$100s per month". It was barely $50, if that. I think the most luxurious thing was some protein shakes, and that was a box for, like, $20 (that'd be the thing in the fridge). They still give me boxes of those shakes sometimes, since my grandma likes 'em and I do, too, so why not, lol And, as I already explained in the original comment, it was a $50 that I could've still paid myself. Instead, I accepted the help. I'm grateful for that help, and recognize that even that much is a privilege a lot of people don't have. That doesn't mean I wasn't poor at the time, nor does it mean that describing my experience is somehow "punching down".
jwilber 6y ago
Sorry if you feel like myself and others are invalidating you’re experience. My sole intent is this: you claim that such a wage is livable on its own today. Your evidence for that claim is that you yourself had a similar wage, over a decade ago, with additional family support, and other benefits (eg no healthcare costs). The two are not the same. Not even close. By by claiming they are, you invalidate the experience of everyone else who actually had to face the struggle of living on a low-wage without any of the benefits you did. I myself ate from a homeless shelter a handful of times in college just because I couldn’t afford food at that moment in time. That is not an exaggeration. So forgive me if it feels like I’m invalidating your experience - I’m sure you struggled as well, but that doesn’t give you the right to speak for the experience of something you’ve clearly never experienced for yourself. A $10 wage is not a livable wage in the vast majority of the country today. It’s a survivable wage at best, but not in every city.
- yellowapple 6y ago
  > Your evidence for that claim is that you yourself had a similar wage, over a decade ago, with additional family support, and other benefits (eg no healthcare costs). And more than double the rent. That's the part y'all seem to be ignoring, and is the exact part that makes my situation comparable and - IMO - worth presenting. If you disagree, can you at least articulate why paying that much more in rent somehow doesn't matter? That doubling in rent is greater in dollar value than the slightly-higher wages + the occasional Costco run from family. If anything, my income minus rent was lower than the $10/hr minus $500/month situation originally presented and to which I responded ($970 v. $1100, respectively, when factoring in that support from family; this assumes 40 hours per week and a 4-week month). And that's assuming zero taxes (which wasn't the case, especially since this was in California). > I’m sure you struggled as well, but that doesn’t give you the right to speak for the experience of something you’ve clearly never experienced for yourself. To be clear here, I don't mean to invalidate your experience, either. My only intent is to describe a situation that IMO is comparable to the one originally presented. If it's not comparable, then fine, but I remain unconvinced when the best that people can do is entirely neglect to read what I wrote and then assume that I was totally paid for and expense-free. It does sound like your situation was worse than mine and the originally-presented one > It’s a survivable wage at best Which is really the only point I was trying to make. Living on that sort of a wage sucks, but it is possible, and it's better than nothing. I strongly believe that human labor is worth more than some measly $10 or $12 per hour, and should be paid accordingly, regardless of whether or not it's technically possible to survive on such a low wage. That said, "survivable" does definitionally mean "livable". The trouble is that "livable" ain't really enough for class mobility.

pphysch 6y ago

> It's bizarre that y'all are willing to discount my experience ...Your experience of having a family or network subsidize $100s per month in various costs, which you are using to try and explain anyway the enormous and well-established economic inequality problem in the US. Why? Can't you be grateful for your privileged position and not punch down?

yellowapple 6y ago
> having a family or network subsidize $100s per month As I've explained in multiple other follow-up comments now (EDIT: including, I now realize, in the exact comment to which you replied): it was not "$100s per month". It was barely $50, if that. I think the most luxurious thing was some protein shakes, and that was a box for, like, $20 (that'd be the thing in the fridge). They still give me boxes of those shakes sometimes, since my grandma likes 'em and I do, too, so why not, lol And, as I already explained in the original comment, it was a $50 that I could've still paid myself. Instead, I accepted the help. I'm grateful for that help, and recognize that even that much is a privilege a lot of people don't have. That doesn't mean I wasn't poor at the time, nor does it mean that describing my experience is somehow "punching down".

jwilber 6y ago

Sorry if you feel like myself and others are invalidating you’re experience. My sole intent is this: you claim that such a wage is livable on its own today. Your evidence for that claim is that you yourself had a similar wage, over a decade ago, with additional family support, and other benefits (eg no healthcare costs). The two are not the same. Not even close. By by claiming they are, you invalidate the experience of everyone else who actually had to face the struggle of living on a low-wage without any of the benefits you did. I myself ate from a homeless shelter a handful of times in college just because I couldn’t afford food at that moment in time. That is not an exaggeration. So forgive me if it feels like I’m invalidating your experience - I’m sure you struggled as well, but that doesn’t give you the right to speak for the experience of something you’ve clearly never experienced for yourself. A $10 wage is not a livable wage in the vast majority of the country today. It’s a survivable wage at best, but not in every city.

yellowapple 6y ago
> Your evidence for that claim is that you yourself had a similar wage, over a decade ago, with additional family support, and other benefits (eg no healthcare costs). And more than double the rent. That's the part y'all seem to be ignoring, and is the exact part that makes my situation comparable and - IMO - worth presenting. If you disagree, can you at least articulate why paying that much more in rent somehow doesn't matter? That doubling in rent is greater in dollar value than the slightly-higher wages + the occasional Costco run from family. If anything, my income minus rent was lower than the $10/hr minus $500/month situation originally presented and to which I responded ($970 v. $1100, respectively, when factoring in that support from family; this assumes 40 hours per week and a 4-week month). And that's assuming zero taxes (which wasn't the case, especially since this was in California). > I’m sure you struggled as well, but that doesn’t give you the right to speak for the experience of something you’ve clearly never experienced for yourself. To be clear here, I don't mean to invalidate your experience, either. My only intent is to describe a situation that IMO is comparable to the one originally presented. If it's not comparable, then fine, but I remain unconvinced when the best that people can do is entirely neglect to read what I wrote and then assume that I was totally paid for and expense-free. It does sound like your situation was worse than mine and the originally-presented one > It’s a survivable wage at best Which is really the only point I was trying to make. Living on that sort of a wage sucks, but it is possible, and it's better than nothing. I strongly believe that human labor is worth more than some measly $10 or $12 per hour, and should be paid accordingly, regardless of whether or not it's technically possible to survive on such a low wage. That said, "survivable" does definitionally mean "livable". The trouble is that "livable" ain't really enough for class mobility.