4 ms·

The lack of reward for planning (by virtue of not having the resources since they're always insufficient and tied up in more immediate concerns) similarly promo

by retrac 4y ago

The lack of reward for planning (by virtue of not having the resources since they're always insufficient and tied up in more immediate concerns) similarly promotes a very detached and immediate lifestyle. I have $50. $50 can mean I have fun tonight. $50 does nothing for me next week except maybe let me buy some food, which I can probably scrape together another way. So I'm going to have some fun tonight. The notion that they should save this and set it aside is unrealistic (it's going to go to some surprise expense that always exceed total income). The norm is always having insufficient resources to meet needs under constant anxiety. So check out from time to time when you have the means to briefly alleviate this by splurging and pretending for 6 hours that you're not in this circumstance. From that perspective, the alternative is being just as poor and not having the brief splurge. Living for the day is quite a sensible life philosophy in such circumstances, really.

nescioquid 4y ago
Had humans the life-span of a mayfly, it might be tolerable to have this discussion every season. Nearly 30 years ago, Clinton's "welfare as we know it" reforms were being normalized by the likes of the New Yorker/Atlantic/NPR smart set who were doing the heavy "interpretive labor" of explaining why poor trash waste hundreds of dollars (careful, those are 1990's dollars!) on crap like track suits and sneakers which ultimately reduced to so much status-quo-affirming "empathy". These discussions focused primarily on black people, not more generally on poor, disenfranchised people. The message was that you needn't worry about it because it was a "minority" problem. Since then, how has the conversation permuted? It has simply become more performative and more mired in the vocabulary of race. Now that it is a problem of race, not class, one merely needs to be "empathetic", which, incidentally, is free. During Clinton's reign, the discussion about the regression to a society with classes like the 30's (upstairs/downstairs) was handled more abstrusely than the easy pre-chewed treacle about racism/welfare (much easier to mouth platitudes or diatribes about black people or the villian du jour than address the fundamental unfairness between capital and labor). Whatever is systemic has to do with power, and power cares not a whit what you look like, how you talk, or what hole you prefer to fuck or be fucked in. People need to stop looking at the color or location of their fuck-hole and simply find solidarity in the fact they are fucked. But this, like the possibility of the public lending-library being invented today, is nil.
Mezzie 4y ago
Yes. Also the advice to scrimp assumes there is a way that the person will ever NOT be poor/in poverty, and that isn't true for some/most poor people. I'm a disabled American who is the breadwinner for myself and another disabled person. Saving would punish us: My sister would lose her health care and I would lose the financial assistance I get for my MS meds. Even if I make more money, it's all going to medical costs, so what's the point?
- chitowneats 4y ago
  There are systems that we could implement that don't have this problem. They could still be generous. In fact they could be more generous. This is classic problem of perverse incentives created by inefficient, though well meaning system.
  - Mezzie 4y ago
    Yup, the incentives when you're poor are perverse. The welfare cliff is real: I still remember my mom's bitching growing up about how she got a dollar per hour raise and lost her childcare assistance, so that raise cost her hundreds of dollars a month.
- robocat 4y ago
  Is there nobody you can trust to look after some savings? A burden on them, and a risk for you, but one way to avoid the risk of cash/bitcoin without being in a government watched account. It is a horrific crime that the incentives are so perverse. I live in New Zealand and we have the same thing to some extent, but mostly not nearly as atrocious as the US systemic abuse. Here’s hoping that modern medicine finally finds a solution to fix MS for you - disability is often invisible - an analogue to the author’s pervasive problems with poverty. All the best.
  - Mezzie 4y ago
    Nope. The reason I'm my sister's caretaker is because our parents won't/can't do it. My dad is a bootstraps guy who refuses to help and my mom isn't financially responsible. I'm the most responsible/trustworthy person in the social network, and the only one who understands the systems. And yeah, I'm pulling for medicine! Pretty hopeful about it, though with my luck they'll figure it out when I'm 65-75 and I'll be able-bodied but too old to change my financial fortunes lol
opportune 4y ago
I can see the reasoning but I still don’t see it as sensible per se. Having a buffer of just $1-3k at the end of the year instead of blowing $50 here and there could make a huge difference as far as anxiety and ability to weather unforeseen issues. Yes, unforeseen things will still arise but you’d rather have the $1k you need to deal with it than not. I’m more partial to the argument that splurges allow people to temporarily feel like they aren’t poor
- notjoemama 4y ago
  I was poor earlier in life. Spending the $50 does nothing to make someone not feel poor but it does, in some way, medicate the feeling. It's the same reason some wealthier people I've met have bought new iPhones and computers every time the next generation rolls around. There isn't a need for it beyond an emotional benefit. But those are important because life is a balancing act. When you're poor you know you're an inch away from being homeless and it weighs heavily. A night of having fun might be temporary but it's memorable and helps tip the scale towards sanity, even if more economically prudent decisions would help in the long term. Recognizing everyone is different, the question is, how much hardship can you endure before you just give up?
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    "It's the same reason some wealthier people I've met have bought new iPhones and computers every time the next generation rolls around." If wealthy people would only spend their money wisely there wouldn't be a need for things like inheritance tax breaks and family trusts to prop up their wealth. :D
- Mezzie 4y ago
  If you're on SSI, you're not allowed more than 2k in savings and assets. Other assistance programs also have asset limits. And a splurge for the impoverished isn't '$50 here and there'. My last 'splurge' was 12 dollars for a pair of fleece lined tights so I don't freeze on my way in to work (I walk to work). Or 3-4 bucks at McD's once every two weeks or so.

by retrac 4y ago

nescioquid 4y ago

Had humans the life-span of a mayfly, it might be tolerable to have this discussion every season. Nearly 30 years ago, Clinton's "welfare as we know it" reforms were being normalized by the likes of the New Yorker/Atlantic/NPR smart set who were doing the heavy "interpretive labor" of explaining why poor trash waste hundreds of dollars (careful, those are 1990's dollars!) on crap like track suits and sneakers which ultimately reduced to so much status-quo-affirming "empathy". These discussions focused primarily on black people, not more generally on poor, disenfranchised people. The message was that you needn't worry about it because it was a "minority" problem. Since then, how has the conversation permuted? It has simply become more performative and more mired in the vocabulary of race. Now that it is a problem of race, not class, one merely needs to be "empathetic", which, incidentally, is free. During Clinton's reign, the discussion about the regression to a society with classes like the 30's (upstairs/downstairs) was handled more abstrusely than the easy pre-chewed treacle about racism/welfare (much easier to mouth platitudes or diatribes about black people or the villian du jour than address the fundamental unfairness between capital and labor). Whatever is systemic has to do with power, and power cares not a whit what you look like, how you talk, or what hole you prefer to fuck or be fucked in. People need to stop looking at the color or location of their fuck-hole and simply find solidarity in the fact they are fucked. But this, like the possibility of the public lending-library being invented today, is nil.

Mezzie 4y ago

Yes. Also the advice to scrimp assumes there is a way that the person will ever NOT be poor/in poverty, and that isn't true for some/most poor people. I'm a disabled American who is the breadwinner for myself and another disabled person. Saving would punish us: My sister would lose her health care and I would lose the financial assistance I get for my MS meds. Even if I make more money, it's all going to medical costs, so what's the point?

chitowneats 4y ago
There are systems that we could implement that don't have this problem. They could still be generous. In fact they could be more generous. This is classic problem of perverse incentives created by inefficient, though well meaning system.
- Mezzie 4y ago
  Yup, the incentives when you're poor are perverse. The welfare cliff is real: I still remember my mom's bitching growing up about how she got a dollar per hour raise and lost her childcare assistance, so that raise cost her hundreds of dollars a month.
robocat 4y ago
Is there nobody you can trust to look after some savings? A burden on them, and a risk for you, but one way to avoid the risk of cash/bitcoin without being in a government watched account. It is a horrific crime that the incentives are so perverse. I live in New Zealand and we have the same thing to some extent, but mostly not nearly as atrocious as the US systemic abuse. Here’s hoping that modern medicine finally finds a solution to fix MS for you - disability is often invisible - an analogue to the author’s pervasive problems with poverty. All the best.
- Mezzie 4y ago
  Nope. The reason I'm my sister's caretaker is because our parents won't/can't do it. My dad is a bootstraps guy who refuses to help and my mom isn't financially responsible. I'm the most responsible/trustworthy person in the social network, and the only one who understands the systems. And yeah, I'm pulling for medicine! Pretty hopeful about it, though with my luck they'll figure it out when I'm 65-75 and I'll be able-bodied but too old to change my financial fortunes lol

opportune 4y ago

I can see the reasoning but I still don’t see it as sensible per se. Having a buffer of just $1-3k at the end of the year instead of blowing $50 here and there could make a huge difference as far as anxiety and ability to weather unforeseen issues. Yes, unforeseen things will still arise but you’d rather have the $1k you need to deal with it than not. I’m more partial to the argument that splurges allow people to temporarily feel like they aren’t poor

notjoemama 4y ago
I was poor earlier in life. Spending the $50 does nothing to make someone not feel poor but it does, in some way, medicate the feeling. It's the same reason some wealthier people I've met have bought new iPhones and computers every time the next generation rolls around. There isn't a need for it beyond an emotional benefit. But those are important because life is a balancing act. When you're poor you know you're an inch away from being homeless and it weighs heavily. A night of having fun might be temporary but it's memorable and helps tip the scale towards sanity, even if more economically prudent decisions would help in the long term. Recognizing everyone is different, the question is, how much hardship can you endure before you just give up?
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  "It's the same reason some wealthier people I've met have bought new iPhones and computers every time the next generation rolls around." If wealthy people would only spend their money wisely there wouldn't be a need for things like inheritance tax breaks and family trusts to prop up their wealth. :D
Mezzie 4y ago
If you're on SSI, you're not allowed more than 2k in savings and assets. Other assistance programs also have asset limits. And a splurge for the impoverished isn't '$50 here and there'. My last 'splurge' was 12 dollars for a pair of fleece lined tights so I don't freeze on my way in to work (I walk to work). Or 3-4 bucks at McD's once every two weeks or so.