5 ms·
I don't think anything you actually said is actually wrong, but it's adjacent to what many rich people do say - that the poor shouldn't have or do anything that
by notacoward 5y ago
I don't think anything you actually said is actually wrong, but it's adjacent to what many rich people do say - that the poor shouldn't have or do anything that just makes them happier until they're not poor. No treats, no recreation, just work at the best-paying job available as many hours as possible and save every penny. And I do have a problem with that. It's a deeply punitive and judgmental attitude, as though being poor is a moral failing that any decent person would seek to resolve as soon as possible. As I said, you didn't quite get there but you kind of brushed against it.
These negative attitudes about "bad decisions" are particularly problematic when children are involved. I grew up poor, in large part because my (single) mother made some of those choices. On two separate occasions, a friend begged her to be the managing editor of a very profitable publication, with stock that would have made us actually rich. Both times, and in other cases as well, she declined in favor of running her own "boutique" business which barely paid the rent. As a result, I do know what it's like to be hungry and scared. But if she had made other choices, my brother and I might have grown up to be very different people. Less "street smart" certainly. Also less exposed to true diversity, less empathetic, less appreciative of what we do have, etc. It's entirely likely that we are better off both financially and emotionally because she made those choices instead of rushing to join the middle class as soon as possible.
I've met enough other "once poor now rich" people to believe this is not an uncommon pattern. The ones whose parents did make the more socially-acceptable choice don't seem better off materially or emotionally than the ones who had to pull themselves up later. In fact, I see some seriously troublesome patterns there. I've seen people who were insulated from hardship and striving all their lives make their own bad decisions that sent them (and their families if they'd gotten that far) right back down the ladder. I've seen people who grew up in "no fun allowed" homes do worse. Those are bad patterns to encourage.
Even as I write my own checks to support my "foolish" parent, I find it's better for my own mental health (and therefore that of my family) to focus on forgiveness and gratitude for what was rather than resentment over what might have been. One lesson that being poor did teach me is that everyone makes some bad choices, and some people are broken by them. Making the world even harsher doesn't seem like the solution.
- Jiro 5y agoThis sounds like sour grapes to me. If side effects like being exposed to true diversity, being empathetic, etc. are so good for you that they're better than escaping poverty, that means that poverty is something to be applauded. Nobody believes that. Poverty is bad. If you have a chance to escape poverty, and it doesn't have serious, straightforward, downsides like working 12 hours a day, or leaving your family, or killing people, you should take it. If you don't, you've made a poor life choice. >The ones whose parents did make the more socially-acceptable choice don't seem better off materially or emotionally than the ones who had to pull themselves up later. Wouldn't the same reasoning apply to you? If it was good for your mother to stay in poverty so you are more empathetic, shouldn't it be good for you to stay in poverty and not pull yourself up at all, so these great benefits of poverty accrue to your children as well?
- notacoward 5y ago> that means that poverty is something to be applauded If you get to accuse me of sour grapes, I get to point out a strawman. Not only does nobody believe that, but nobody claimed or even implied it either. Bear in mind that there are many levels of poverty, and even at the same level many experiences. I think it's possible that it worked out for me and my brother, but that's neither certain nor generalizable. We were poor but not destitute, and we were poor for reasons that included our mother's commitment to being present for our childhoods. Not everyone has that. Also, being rich doesn't mean being happy or sane either. In my experience the relationship between later-life happiness and early-life circumstance is barely above statistical noise among those who are rich as adults. But that's not the same as recommending that people be poor, because so many (too many) people remain poor and are thus not part of the sample. I think overlooking that is either bad faith or proving the article's (and my) point. Sometimes poor people have priorities other than becoming un-poor as soon as humanly possible, and those priorities remain valid even if rich sophists don't understand or approve.
- c22 5y agoI think wealthy people should marry poor people more often so kids can grow up with the benefits of both types of influence.