3 ms·

$150/cleaning is a perfectly reasonable rate for a housekeeper, but the fact remains, broke people can't afford that. Broke people can't afford servants. Broke

$150/cleaning is a perfectly reasonable rate for a housekeeper, but the fact remains, broke people can't afford that. Broke people can't afford servants. Broke people either do it themselves or live in a dirty house.

mmooss 5mo ago
The OP also said they had $14 in their bank account. This whole thing seems like a not uncommon pattern in our society: shaming poor people for not living acetic lives, as if they should suffer to qualify as the 'good' kind of poor.
- Aurornis 5mo ago
  > shaming poor people for not living acetic lives, as if they should suffer to qualify as the 'good' kind of poor. You're missing the point that if she wasn't spending $600/month on house cleaning, she wouldn't have only $14 left in her bank account. Going without a house cleaner is not an ascetic lifestyle. This is getting silly.
  - mmooss 5mo ago
    > $600/month The article doesn't say it's weekly. Some people I know with housecleaners are do it monthly.
    - pickleglitch 5mo ago
      Look, I've been broke. I've been "figure out how to make a rotisserie chicken feed us for a week" broke. I've been "counting literal pennies to figure out which groceries you can buy" broke. This isn't shaming someone for spending money on candy or soda, or even a cell phone or a flat screen TV. I even agree that $150 a month is not exactly extravagance, but unless you are disabled, hiring a housekeeper is a major luxury. It's a recurring cost, be it $150/week or $150/month, that can easily be eliminated, and anyone who has been poor would not think twice about eliminating it when things get tight. And the point isn't that this person is or isn't the "right" kind of poor. It's that they come off as someone cosplaying poverty, and it undermines the premise of the whole article.
      - mmooss 5mo ago
        > cosplaying poverty Again, they have $14 in their bank account.

mmooss 5mo ago

The OP also said they had $14 in their bank account. This whole thing seems like a not uncommon pattern in our society: shaming poor people for not living acetic lives, as if they should suffer to qualify as the 'good' kind of poor.

Aurornis 5mo ago
> shaming poor people for not living acetic lives, as if they should suffer to qualify as the 'good' kind of poor. You're missing the point that if she wasn't spending $600/month on house cleaning, she wouldn't have only $14 left in her bank account. Going without a house cleaner is not an ascetic lifestyle. This is getting silly.
- mmooss 5mo ago
  > $600/month The article doesn't say it's weekly. Some people I know with housecleaners are do it monthly.
  - pickleglitch 5mo ago
    Look, I've been broke. I've been "figure out how to make a rotisserie chicken feed us for a week" broke. I've been "counting literal pennies to figure out which groceries you can buy" broke. This isn't shaming someone for spending money on candy or soda, or even a cell phone or a flat screen TV. I even agree that $150 a month is not exactly extravagance, but unless you are disabled, hiring a housekeeper is a major luxury. It's a recurring cost, be it $150/week or $150/month, that can easily be eliminated, and anyone who has been poor would not think twice about eliminating it when things get tight. And the point isn't that this person is or isn't the "right" kind of poor. It's that they come off as someone cosplaying poverty, and it undermines the premise of the whole article.
    - mmooss 5mo ago
      > cosplaying poverty Again, they have $14 in their bank account.