15 ms·
The Logic of “Stupid” Poor People
- headShrinker 13y agoAn equally good question is why to poor people vote republican? Because they want to belong. And through financial osmosis people who vote republican become rich, right? That is the thinking anyway.
- psychotik 13y agoWait, where did you read that poor people vote republican? I would've guessed otherwise.
- xhrpost 13y agoI don't know the statistics off hand but I remember reading that there were poor counties in the US in which Romney did not receive a single vote. So yea I'm not sure what context OP is referring to.
- seiji 13y agoThe gist of it is the "religious right" got in bed with all the big money/exploit-the-world old white men. Then, messaging to voters becomes "I LOVE GOD!" instead of "All your money flows up to me." The "poor people vote republican" line of thought follows from people believing poorer/more-religious people vote only on religion above all else without regard for how much their representatives also want to exploit/maim/kill/cancer them. Recent evidence doesn't entirely support that conclusion, but it makes for a convenient story. What we end up with is the representatives not keeping up to date with reality. The reps stay "god god god religion god god jesus" while the world drifted more to "Uh, actually everything is pretty okay. Just stay out of our way." You can see that effect in southern "we hate all the gays" politicians while most real people don't want oppression/repression/persecution of them at all. But—to get your way—all you have to do is scaretivate (scare+motivate) a small vocal base into voting for your overton candidate. (See: 2004 GWB election where "kill the gays" was set as a constitutional amendment in a dozen states along with "Vote for GWB!" — Drag the crazies out to vote for their delusional pet social bigot issue while also catapulting your candidate pet back to victory (well, victory against a droning sedated sloth, but victory nonetheless))
- bluedino 13y agoPoor in urban areas = Democrat Poor in rural areas = Republican
- WalterSear 13y agoPoor in urban areas = Black Poor in rural areas = White
- mercuryrising 13y ago"Lower-income and less educated whites also have shifted substantially toward the Republican Party since 2008. The GOP has largely erased the wide lead Democrats had among white voters with family incomes less than $30,000." [0] Although the graphs on [1] tell a slightly different story. [0] - http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-in-2012/ http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-... [1] - http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/26/161841771/how-income-divides-democrats-republicans-and-independents http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/26/161841771/how-inco...
- refurb 13y agoWhite people only make up 72% of the population. You can't dismiss the other 28%.
- gadders 13y agoI know! Why can't poor people just vote themselves more and more unaffordable benefits like in Greece. What could possibly go wrong?
- jaynos 13y agoBest selling books have been written about it. [1]http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-Amer...
- 300bps 13y agowhy to poor people vote republican? Because they want to belong. And through financial osmosis people who vote republican become rich, right? That is the thinking anyway. This is needlessly insulting tripe. Poor people vote Republican because they believe in the platform that the Republican party states they support as they understand it. Just like the reason people vote for the Democratic party. It's all based on a mix of imperfect understanding of imperfect honesty. You have an interesting profile as well: HN has become a very negative site as of recent. I see no place for me to contribute here. From now on I will not be posting or submitting
- donretag 13y agoMany people vote republican not because of their fiscal policies, but because of the social ones like abortion.
- WalterSear 13y agoAbortion, Homosexual Marriage, these are manufactured controversy. They were created so that that poor masses can be convinced to vote for them.
- hnal943 13y agoHow are they "manufactured controversy?" Do you think that there is a secret universal agreement on these issues? Seems unlikely.
- binxbolling 13y agoAmong the Religious Right in the US, it's very largely manufactured. Meaning: groups of people very deliberately chose two key issues (abortion and gay marriage) and created opposition movements where there weren't any before. A number of authors trace this, but you could try Randall Balmer for starters.
- WalterSear 13y agoIt's a mostly tacit agreement between a relatively small group of career rabble rousers and carpet-bagging politicians, building 'issues' to root their respective industries in.
- rogerbinns 13y ago"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." -- John Steinbeck
- cobrausn 13y agoAnd for at least 1.7 million people last year, they were? http://www.cnbc.com/id/101099732 http://www.cnbc.com/id/101099732
- MaysonL 13y agoAnd of course if you look at the economic performance of the US under R administrations, vs D administrations, the Rs win by a hundred miles. /s
- jaynos 13y agoUnless you actually look at economic performance. [1]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/democratic-presidents-are-better-for-the-economy.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-25/democratic-presiden... [2]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/economy-has-grown-the-most-when-democrats-have-been-in-power/2012/04/09/gIQA1VhS6S_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/economy-ha...
- MaysonL 13y agoAs the /s was meant to indicate. :) (Thanks for the links).
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 13y agoIs Steinbeck still right about that?
- gadders 13y agoAnd the whole "it has never worked anywhere else" thing. That might factor into it.
- Qom 13y ago“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” -- John Steinbeck Although I do not actually support socialism, I think this quote is one interesting take (of many) on the problem you've outlined. Edit: looks like someone beat me to it by one minute.
- jessaustin 13y ago...why to [sic] poor people vote republican? Why does anyone vote republican, or democrat? Because those are the two choices on the ballot.
- wavefunction 13y agoYou need to keep reading the ballot! There are usually at least one "alternative" candidate who doesn't represent the Democrats or Republicans. I didn't even agree with the Libertarian candidate on many things but I voted for them to satisfy my right and responsibility to vote while not endorsing the Single Party we have here in the US.
- Qom 13y agoWe are watching you.
- TallGuyShort 13y agoI consider myself poor, and although I vote for a third-party I do vote against programs that would help me financially. I do so because I consider them unfair to others and poor government, so on principle, I vote against my own financial interests at times.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y agoIf I had to put myself in a poor Republican voter's shoes, maybe I vote Republican because I'm too proud to admit that I need help lifting myself out of the shithole of my life. Maybe I don't want to be pandered too by the Democrats because I am working my ass off and I can't seem to catch a break. Maybe I don't want to be where I am today, but I don't know how to be somewhere else tommorrow. I've known a lot of people in bad situations and most of them where hard working men and women that take nothing for granted. The ones that do...well when you reduce the budget of a welfare system to the point where every dollar HAS to go to those in need, you don't leave a whole lot to oversight and investigation of fraud.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y agoFirstly, you are dismissisive to the point of bigotry if you ever refer to someone as stupid, I don't care if they are rich or poor. And while I'm all for personal responsibility and accountability...how many classes in public schools teach things like money and lifestyle management? Home Ec? Pretty sure all I learned there was how to cook and omlette. This country refuses to blame the parents yet we do nothing to as a society to prepare future generations for the real world. Instead we teach to a bullshit testing standard that has taken the initiative out of the hands of our teachers during a time in history when creativity and drive is so vital to the global economy. Instead ignorant people post ignorant messages about how some lady with a bunch of kids in a welfare line is sporting a Gucci bag. Stop trying to stereotype the problem and start trying to look how collectively we can benefit one another through education and understanding.
- coldcode 13y agoExactly this. We don't teach what we want people to know as adults, unless you realize many politicians would rather have ignorant populous they can lie to with impunity. We should teach basic economics from early years until they graduate and can't be fooled any more.
- antsar 13y agoI don't mean to be a pedantic jerk, and I'm only mentioning it because I would want to be corrected similarly: I think the word you meant to use was 'populace', not 'populous'.
- Qom 13y agoYou're like a Canadian grammar Nazi: punctilious yet courteous.
- balabaster 13y agoThat's because it's not done to be a jerk, but to be edumucative eh? :P
- kirpekar 13y agoI read the whole article and do not agree. Here in Silicon Valley the importance of appearances has become marginal. Yes, you have to be clean, presentable, but that's it. After that you need the skills, talent, knowledge and aptitude to perform your job. And you need that everyday, to keep your job, in this hyper-competitive environment. I was a poor starving immigrant student at one point. I did fine without even mildly expensive clothes, shoes or cars. I've also hired poor resource-less college kids. Anecdotal, but the best workers (in our technical field) were the ones who cared the least about appearances.
- sprizzle 13y agoI agree with you for the most part, but I think the point the author's trying to make is that "poor" people may not see it that way; instead, to them, lavish riches create a sense of belonging.
- ChikkaChiChi 13y agoPartially right. We live in a culture where Fergie can get up and talk about living a jet set mentality and there are songs on the radio today talking about Maybachs, etc. Couple that with a lack of education on financial well being, and suddenly you have people making unwise choices.
- semiel 13y agoTech is a weird culture, where the status symbols are totally different. Knowing weird programming languages, having open source contributions, and appreciating nerdy humor are all more important than clothing choice. (Though someone who accidentally wears something too "fancy" might not get taken seriously.) But for pretty much anything other than "getting a programming job", this essay is pretty much spot on.
- slg 13y agoSilicon Valley is still somewhat an exception to the rule about appearances. In what other area do the rich people dress exactly like the poorest? Remember the hubbub when Zuckerberg wore a hoodie to a meeting regarding the Facebook IPO. That might be laughed off in Silicon Valley but I know many people in other parts of the country that would view it as insulting for someone to show up to a business meeting wearing something like that.
- makerops 13y agoAnyone who wants to "belong" to a league of people who would waste 2500$ on a handbag IS stupid. Whether they are poor or not is immaterial. It is also a huge leap to say that being "presentable" is the same as wasting money you do not have on status symbols. They aren't the same thing.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ddoolin 13y agoYou're assuming there's no derived benefit from belonging to that league of people, but she makes the case that there is a benefit (or benefits) to it, despite admitting it's kind of lame. It's not the strongest argument, I'll give you that, but I wouldn't know.
- makerops 13y agoI am not making that assumption really; people that are able to really provide someone with benefits, whether it is knowledge, capital, power etc, would scoff at, and see right through the 2500$ handbag. My point being, either 1. you think you can access a level of person that will help you out by owning a 2500$ handbag (stupid) or 2. That there is a group of people that will allow you into their social sphere because you own a 2500$ hand bag, in the end people who think like this in that social sphere, will not be able to do anything for you.
- tghw 13y agoThe price of membership is not a $2500 hand bag. It's having a certain level of presentability. The author makes a poor choice by conflating these two. One can be presentable without blowing a limited budget. But spending 10-25% of your annual take home on a hand bag is, simply, poor decision making.
- randywaterhouse 13y agoIncredulity reflects how people really believe that other people may, in fact, operate in some sort of rational world. When we think of ourselves, for the most part, we tend to think we would make rational decisions in all circumstances we were faced in, especially those we are NOT in. Irrationality of consumers is great for the retail economy, though, and while it defies years of economic logic, behavioral economics has been in the spotlight for many things these days, more so than simple rational-consumer theory. (perhaps it's simply the logic of smart poor people in a stupid/deranged society?)
- vinhboy 13y agoWhile I agree with the sentiment, I don't think her arguments are very strong. I personally think people make bad decisions to buy things or do things not on the premise of it being an "investment", but because most of us are very weak. We do the things we do because we are victims to advertising and peer pressure. You think they spend billions on advertising for nothing? If you read this and you are thinking, "No I am not." You are 1) in denial 2) above average. If you are above average, then you should realize averages exist because half of the people are below it.
- DanWaterworth 13y ago> then you should realize averages exist because half of the people are below it. Only true of median.
- Qom 13y agoI think that the colloquial use of the term "average" actually means the median. That's how I have seen it used, anyway.
- maxerickson 13y agoNo, people usually have the arithmetic mean in mind.
- Swizec 13y agoPeople have the arithmetic mean in mind, but their intuition of "average" is actually the median, or even more commonly the modus. When somebody says "Average people are X", they usually mean "Most people I've encountered are X", which is the modus. Hell, I just did that in this exact sentence!
- Qom 13y agoI like how we've totally ignored the guy's arguments due to some technicality in his post. That's Hacker News for you!
- sveron 13y agoBeautiful analysis of privilege, class signifiers and race. Technology culture and employment in the United States is dominated by straight white males, usually with some form of class and economic privilege--people who haven't had to navigate within their society with an extreme outsider status--but there are welcome signs of a growing critical self awareness. Over the years on HN, I've seen many posts questioning the economic value of a four year college education, particularly an education in the humanities. This right here is a great post to keep in your pocket the next time someone says something like that.
- stackcollision 13y agoFor a second I thought I had stumbled onto tumblr.
- cobrausn 13y agoAnd yet she shows the barrier to entry for a woman to be other women in HR who were of the same race. How is 'critical self awareness' of straight white males going to help that? I've talked about this before at length, but assigning the term 'privilege' exclusively to 'straight white males' is fairly intellectually dishonest. The problem is bigger than that - our culture values behaving like a 'normal person', our definition of 'normal' just happens to have a lot of white people in it. Some poor white people living in trailers with heavy accents and unkempt clothes would have had (and do have) similar problems.
- potatolicious 13y agoI don't think you two are really disagreeing. Privilege is not exclusive to straight white males, it just so happens that in this country, at this moment, straight white males enjoy an order of magnitude more of it than everyone else. It becomes convenient to point at the largest elephant in the room instead of fully qualifying the point. But white privilege, straight privilege, and all other forms of privilege affect not just those who have it, but everyone else around them. The barrier to entry for this woman was other women in HR, of the same race - who have internalized and normalized straight/white/male/etc privilege. Normalization is privilege. Without normalization you don't have privilege - you don't have thoughts like "that's not a black guy job", or "that guy's too fruity to interact with my clients". Privilege is the unfair treatment of people based on their deviation from a perceived norm. The perceived norm may be perceived even by people who are on the losing end of the particular proposition - whether it is their race, gender, orientation, or other.
- Qom 13y agoThis article is unconvincing at best. She claims that you can only look presentable on a tight budget, which is patently false. You can look classy with affordable items: it only takes a tiny bit of basic fashion knowledge and a little more money than for the K-Mart option. I've seen plenty of people who bought brand items but used them in a vulgar or trashy way: the result was that you could immediately identify them as poor, defeating the whole purpose of the "investment". Some researchers have outlined that poverty is debilitating and impairs decision making, but there clearly are some poor people who contribute to their own fate. Advertising is partly to blame, but most of the responsibility rests with them not to buy ludicrous products in the hope of some inchoate recognition from others. Simply accusing the "white male privileged life of the mind" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
- zasz 13y agoIf you're an outsider to a social group, how would you know how to imitate them cheaply and convincingly? Your point about people buying brand items and using them in a "vulgar" way actually just reinforces how hard it can be for poor people to look presentable. They literally don't know what they're doing. And you expect them to dress well in a way that can fit their budget? That's unreasonable.
- MattGrommes 13y agoOne of the hard parts for me to understand about articles like this is the addition of race into a social calculation that may not have included race. If I see somebody I'm hiring has a clean car (one of the examples in the article), I'm not thinking "Great, a black person acting white by having a clean car, I'm hiring her", I'm thinking "Great, a tidy person with a clean car". I see this a lot. Obviously there are people who think the first way and I'd wager almost every person of color deals with these people every day so it's probably hard not to do that. But putting assumptions like that on every social interaction seems problematic to me. But as a white man I of course have absolutely no real sense (outside of reading and friends) of how it is to live as a person of color so what do I know. Just thinking out loud.
- DanielStraight 13y agoPlease understand I am just trying to explain a viewpoint, not necessarily state my personal beliefs. I think the argument is that you won't notice when a white male is tidy. You notice a black person with a clean car because subconsciously you don't expect it. So even a positive thought or comment (a tidy person with a clean car) becomes racial because it would never have come up with a white male. See also: "articulate"
- yannyu 13y agoRe: the "articulate" thing, I'm sure some of the engineers on YC have heard something along those lines from people before. I've heard people say "you communicate really well", "you're very articulate", or "you're surprisingly outgoing" about pretty mundane activities. Yes, it's a compliment, but in some of those cases the underlying assumption is that "computer" types aren't great at that sort of thing.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- theorique 13y agoI know some people think that way, and racialize everything. I admit that I just don't get this point of view. I really don’t. I aim, and generally succeed, at being as color blind as possible. To me a person with a clean car and nice clothes is a person with a clean car and tidy clothes. I don't get surprised when that person turns out to be a black female or a white man. Same thing with a person at the opposite end of the spectrum - i.e. a nasty car and dirty clothes. While one could stereotype blacks in this situation (“ghetto”), or whites (“hillbilly”), why would you do that?
- wyager 13y ago>aping the white male privileged life of the mind Oh look: another racist, sexist, and poorly written complaint piece masquerading as some kind of intelligent discourse.
- lmg643 13y agoI will agree the value of a put-together appearance is valid, in many contexts. and i wouldn't take from that at all. However ... it's ridiculous to use this to defend a $2,500 handbag purchase. the purchase was inadvisable at best. marshall's, target, JCP etc have a massive business strategy around making sophisticated looks available on a low budget. so there are plenty of ways to accomplish the objective of self respect, presentation and budget. there's an old essay by tom wolfe called "mau mauing the flak catchers" - watching the CEO of barney's defending himself, I think that fits just about perfectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_&_Mau-Mauing_the_Flak_Catchers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_&_Mau-Mauing_the_F...
- encoderer 13y agoCertainly true. There are very nice designer handbags for a fraction. Even if you think the $300-500 brands aren't good enough (Coach, Marc, Kate Spade, etc), there are even more in the $800-1200 range (Louis Vuitton, for one..) I know this because I have a wife with tastes for such things :)
- beambot 13y agoThen you should have her check out Lollipuff (YC W13): designer auctions pre-screened by experts for authenticity (ie. eBay without the fakes). It also amazes us. Why would people pay full price when the "lightly used" ones sell for 80% off? *Disclaimer: Am a founder of Lollipuff.
- consonants 13y agoI'd wager it's the same reasoning people buy new cars or new consumer electronics.
- beambot 13y agoAnd what is that reasoning? Unlike cars and electronics, many designer goods hold their value over time, and some even appreciate.
- adamzerner 13y agoGetting a nice outfit or two is probably a good investment. I guess it helps you deal with bureaucrats and job interviews and stuff. But what about the rest of the "investments" poor people make? Are they all worth it? To what EXTENT do poor people make good decisions? THAT is the real question here, and it isn't even being asked.
- theorique 13y agoThe article raises a good point, but it also frames the dichotomy as an either-or question. In other words, is there no middle ground between buying an Hermès Birkin bag and dressing in rags? At least in the US, discount stores plus some fashion sense can compensate to some degree for raw dollars and a personal shopper. Where I think the upper class pulls away from the lower class is in access to experience at a young age. Except for very rare exceptions, children are of the social class of their parents, and tend to have the experiences associated with that class.
- peterwwillis 13y agoNEWS FLASH: People treat different people differently. Do we really have to explain to adults how prejudice works?
- emhart 13y agoI cannot speak to the gendered or racial points (white male, here), but during my time in NYC I experienced first hand the escalation of opportunity that tracked with my escalation of signaling clothing and accessories. I was lucky enough to be poached from my job as a movie theater cleaner/attendant by the manager of a 5th Avenue Kenneth Cole. At the time I was struggling and would eventually end up temporarily homeless, and I didn't have the clothes required to work at the store. The manager insisted I at least have 1 clean, all black outfit that was brand new. I went to H&M and did exactly what the author here describes, I skipped meals to afford it. I paid my share of the rent late, but I got the outfit and I started the job. Given the opportunity, I started to excel and as we were paid commission, my financial outlook started to improve, but I was still in serious debt and couldn't get enough hours to get over what seemed like an endlessly far away threshold of financial stability. Right before Christmas we had a regional manager come in and watch us work for a few days, as he was leaving he gave me ~$200 of "KC Cash" which was used to reward talented employees. I could use it, with my discount, to buy things we sold. I was so excited because it meant I'd be able to buy Christmas presents for my family. Instead, my manager insisted I buy clothes and accessories for myself so I would be more presentable in the store. I went along with his demand and bought myself a couple outfits and a nice leather portfolio messenger bag, and gave my family nothing for the holidays, which they all understood. In January, commissioned sales on moderately high end clothing drops off dramatically, as did my hours. Suddenly the threshold of stability vanished into the distance again and I needed to make a change. I wanted 40 hours, I had been without health insurance for a couple of years, and I wanted the chance to pay down my debts and move forward with my life. I started asking around and applying to office jobs for which I had no experience and no degree. I landed an interview at a data processing company and I wore my Kenneth Cole clothes, I had a copy of my resume that a friend put together on their computer tucked into my KC Messenger bag. And when I was hired for a job I knew nothing about and had no prior experience with, it was from a pool of applicants who weren't signaling their status as strongly as I was. I remember how confident I felt, sitting in their lobby with a dozen other people around me, none dressed as well, and the few who tried not having items of the same quality. As I've developed more marketable skills (graphic design, web dev, etc.) I've been able to signal less, but the article struck a chord with me. I remember going hungry to get the better job, skipping the christmas gifts for family to get the clothes my job required and that eventually let me get my foot in the door to a better life.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- AsymetricCom 13y agoI love this headline. I'd also love to see one about Evil Rich People to get both sides of the coin.
- medium 13y agoThis entire article could really be shortened to one simple sentence: "Poor people buy expensive things because it makes them FEEL rich for a moment."
- Djehngo 13y agoOnly it couldn't because that's not even close to what the article was saying. It was pointing out that looking the part gives opportunities which might otherwise be closed. Therefore spending your meagre savings buying fancy clothes can be seen as an investment. I'm not addressing the validity of the article's point vs yours, but the summary was not correct.
- ahelwer 13y agoWhen debating social justice issues, it is wise to bear in mind that deconstructing one particular thesis in a vacuum offers little more than intellectual showboating; much of the social justice narrative describes small and seemingly-trivial barriers cumulatively forming concrete obstacles. For a better metaphor, Marilyn Frye writes in The Politics of Reality: "Cages. Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would have trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon." This myopic focus seems to be more common on technology forums than elsewhere. I am interested as to why this is the case. Probably, a technical education lends itself well to analyzing the validity of individual details but not reasoning at a structural level.
- MarkPNeyer 13y agoi love the analogy, but you're overthinking it. most people on technical forums have never been poor, so they've never been in the cage and have only heard about second-hand. i didn't understand what poverty was like until i started smoking weed all the time, neglected most aspects of my life and got heavily into debt. i still wan't poor, but i started to understand why people without money, who are constantly hounded by debt collectors, tend to focus so much on the short term.
- lambdaphage 13y agoJust to lay my cards on the table: I'm registered as a member of the US Green Party and have been involved with various left wing activist movements since I was fifteen. I've also been poor, living in a junkie hotel and doing day labor for cash. My most upvoted comment on hn (before I ragequit my previous account (for basically leftist grievances (!))) was one describing what that was like. Still, I find the intellectual attitude that you've described deeply unsettling. As you've sketched it, the "social justice narrative[0]" is unfalsifiable: what claims does your theory of politics actually make about the world if any given piece of it can be overturned without making a dent in the theory itself? A theory of social inequality can't be correct in general without being correct in particular cases. Refuting (not "deconstructing") a particular thesis is not "intellectual showboating", it's engaging in argument. What else is someone who sincerely disagrees with you supposed to do? I've seen this happen with depressing regularity: a self-styled social justice advocate will make a claim, and sometimes that claim will get demolished by an intelligent opponent. (Yes, this can happen, and it is a portent for the future of the left that most activists never learn to take a drubbing from a perceptive conservative.) Rather than taking stock at that point, the social justice advocate throws up a polysyllabic ink cloud ("institutional", "systemic" and "societal" seem to enjoy heavy rotation) and jets away. Whether it is true or not that nebulous social forces conspire to constrain outcomes for the poor in the way that the social justice advocate believes, I have no idea why such verbal behavior should be considered convincing. This is especially frustrating if you actually sincerely think that the left has good ideas about social policy that should be argued for in earnest and implemented. --- [0] The heavy rhetorical weight placed on the word "narrative" also gives me goosebumps. What happened to plain old arguments-- a set of propositions intended to establish (or at least raise the probability of) the truth of a conclusion? I would hate to think it's because "narratives", unlike arguments, are impossible to demonstrate or refute.
- DanielBMarkham 13y agoOof. Another one of these "I'm a member of special group that you can never understand. We are put down by other groups. I am going to emote a bit to make you feel guilty." I hate these things because they defy honest feedback. Instead, it's jump on the bandwagon or be called names. So I'm calling bullshit on this general type of article on HN. Having said that, I find this article as good as any of the example of the genre. Remember, this article is about poverty. As such, it fails miserably to make its case. Yes, people buy things to socially signal. Yes, many poor people buy expensive status symbols. But there's a lot to be said for attitude. Most of life is just showing up and having a positive attitude -- far more than what kinds of boots you're wearing or how much you spent on your coat. Yes, like most people I'll happily make spot judgments within about 5 seconds of seeing you. But those judgments are not based on fashion. They're based on hygiene, facial expression (are you happy? That makes me happy), demeanor, and body language. A much better social signal is elimination of dialect, as the author mentions. Every culture has a "high" language and several medium or low languages. So get rid of that deep southern dialect if you want to make a good impression. Costs nothing. Instead of spending a lot on an expensive suit, pick up something wearable at the local Goodwill store. Practice entering a room, walking, sitting down, and chatting in front of a video camera. Social signalling is just the way we're made. But it doesn't have a damned thing to do with being poor. Or rather the signal in this case is easily gamed in very cheap ways. At least for purposes of getting out of poverty. Obviously, if you're selling stocks, the game is played at a different level. But even then, there are lots of tactics that don't involve writing big checks. In short, don't be a putz. Instead, cultivate inside of yourself something of real value, and make sure that the things that you have and do allow that to shine through.
- altoz 13y agoArticle strikes me as too much rationalization and not enough reflection. To one person, a $2500 bag may signal that you're middle class. To another, it may signal you're really bad with financial decisions. I don't think that argument that it's a survival mechanism really holds as it's really speculative and not supported by any data.
- aswath87 13y agoIt is unfortunate that we have to spend on these useless status symbols to open doors. Ugh humans...
- JonSkeptic 13y ago>We could, as my grandfather would say, talk like white folks. We loaned that privilege out to folks a lot. I think that speaking well, or being articulate, is not a privilege but an ability. It is not an ability that everyone has, but it is an ability that almost anyone can acquire with practice. This is true both in verbal and digital communication. If you are not articulate, you will be at a disadvantage throughout your life. Period. The color of your skin has nothing to do with it.
- kisil_reboot 13y agoYes, it's important to be articulate. But the author is talking about speaking a different vernacular. I imagine one can be articulate in Black English* without being fluent in White English. "Talk[ing] like white folks" means speaking the same language at all, not merely "speaking well" on some counterfactual continuum. [*] I imagine because I don't speak it.
- sanskritabelt 13y agoIt's kind of interesting that you equate 'talk[ing] like white folks' with 'speaking well' and 'being articulate.' Why do you think that is?
- itchyouch 13y agocuz I been done dat, and you know, like dat idea where, you know, it's like, when I been tryin', but it ain't gud nuff 4 dem, cuz dey white foke be thinkin dat I can't do it when I can! versus Because I've done that, and you know, the idea where, I-have-been-trying-but-it-isn't-good-enough, makes them think that I can't do it when I can. versus The impression I left with them portrayed a lack of capability, when in-fact, that was not the case. I felt it unfair, that I may have been the recipient of a snap-judgement and to add insult to injury, I did not have the opportunity to re-impress upon them my talent. A lot of people equate speaking-white with [more-]proper sentence structure , but the true differentiator in articulative ability is an expansive vocabulary capable of conveying in-intricate-detail or not, the abstract ideas necessary to communicate on a team.
- nickff 13y agoI read the first half of this piece as a (strong) case against the administrative discretion and power of the bureaucracy. The second half seems to be a rather sad and puzzling anecdote, whose ramifications I do not fully comprehend.
- chflamplighter 13y agoThe old chestnut, "Fake it till you Make it" comes to mind. In some cases this can be helpful, ie pretending to follow the Champions League to get along with the fellows in the office, but following this as a blueprint for life can hurt much more than it helps with tons of unintended consequences(over spending, loss of your true identity, being a liar.....)
- S_A_P 13y agoThe other day, I was hanging out with my uncle, who is a devoted hi-fi nut.(like tubes and lps and voodoo cables kinda hi-fi nut) He took me to a fellow 'enthusiasts' home who has spent the kind of money on a hi-fi system that I couldn't see happening even if I were a multi billionaire. This guy had the $160,000 US msrp(though he got them at the bargain price of only $60,000 plus a trade of some other equipment) Focal Grande Utopia EM(for electro magnet being used on the subwoofer) http://www.focal.com/en/utopia-iii/184-grande-utopia-em-3544050698000.html http://www.focal.com/en/utopia-iii/184-grande-utopia-em-3544... He also had 750watt tube amps that were approximately 3x3 cubes on his floor and surprisingly for being valve amps of that magnitude didn't create the heat of the sun. He had a dedicated power circuit installed by the utility company so that he could separately condition and wire everything to use only the best 10,000 dollar cables available. While this guy was certainly well off, his home probably more than doubled in value when he took that stereo inside the front door. He was retired and didnt need a large home, and this was an older 2500-3000 sq ft home in Dallas.(which is still somewhat reasonable per sq ft, compared to say silicon valley) This guy was SOO proud of his stereo, that he has listening parties every tuesday night to show it off. Sure it sounded good, but as I said, even if my last name was Gates, Buffett or Zuckerberg I dont think that would ever be on my radar as a purchase decision. In many ways I think this persons stereo and an indigent person buying a 2500 dollar purse are the same impulse. Both seem horribly frivolous, but who are we to judge really??
- theorique 13y agoThe clear dividing line is - can the person truly afford it? If a person spends an absurd amount of money that he has (i.e. that he actually earned and saved) on something that seems crazy to most people, that's OK - he's making a personal choice with personal funds (i.e. hi-fi enthusiast man) On the other hand, a person with a minimum wage job making the decision to buy a $2500 purse out of some speculation that it will help her make the jump to the next level? Frankly, that just seems foolish. Why not take $200 for a purse, $200 for a new suit? It’s not the shopping for image and upward mobility that bothers people - that decision actually makes some sense. The problem arises when that shopping crosses the line from reasonable spending that a person can afford and/or justify, into a place that’s completely insane and truly unaffordable.
- dnautics 13y agowhat's "half a PhD"?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- brudgers 13y agoOne of my mentors, the late David Crane FAIA, clearly articulated how to understand what poor folks want. They want the same things as folks who ain't. Better than nothing, starving and shivering aside, means the same to them as it does to me.
- ctdonath 13y agoThere is a difference between investing money in quality goods as tools & means of improving one's condition, vs. squandering money in luxury goods with no reasonable expectation of return on the expense. The author points directly at this difference without recognizing it.
- ksab 13y agoThe marketing machine behind many brands is highly effective at establishing "status". The marketers place their products across multiple media platforms and those around you simply cannot escape its reach. While I agree that $2500 on a purse is ridiculous, some less expensive brand signalling across multiple pieces of clothing might be equally effective. I am reminded of this experiment using the Lacoste and Hilfiger logos: http://www.economist.com/node/18483423 http://www.economist.com/node/18483423
- goggles99 13y agoThere is a big fallacy with the reasoning behind this article. I grew up in impoverished areas (both the inner city, and in rural areas) with the typical high minority population. I have observed a LOT of poor people and their spending habits. Here are my thoughts. (I am not disputing the claim of the author's story and that experience, I am merely pointing out that his example is not the case most of the time.) It is true that a very small minority of people dress and talk nicely because they realize that they will be treated better by the middle and upper class. Now in this group, some spend lavish amounts of money (like in the article), and some shop at thrift stores and/or buy knock off designer purses, belts, ETC. This fact alone blurs the argument that the author is presenting. It is very possible (and proven so) to live in poverty in America and dress well by choosing alternative resources. The other (and more devastating) counter argument that applies to other poor people is merely by observation of what the status symbols that many in these groups purchase. Let me use the example that was laid out in the article. The typical poor black women/man in a white world scenario. Well then why do the majority of poor black men and women who make expensive status symbol purchases look ghetto and drive "ghetto" cars? I don't mean beat up and worn out clothes and cars, I mean the style of clothing/jewelry and pimped out cars. These same people aren't talking "nicely" either. Their heavy use of Ebonics/Redneck/Slang and constant expletives while wearing their gold chains, starter athletic jerseys and Le-Brons (expensive basketball shoes) ETC. Tell a different story. They are seeking status among their piers, not the middle/upper class that they envy. They are not doing it to help them work their way up economically. It is in fact keeping them down. How are they better off overall now? They could have saved that money and invested it on going to school or moving to an area of better geographic opportunity. Now instead they just look like more expensively dressed thugs. My personal belief is that most poor people live for today. They don't have long term goals and plans. They were never taught good habits like saving up money and conveying to the non-minority class that they don't have a ghetto mentality or live in the rap/hip hop culture (during job interviews ETC). They have no hope, because they have no vision or dreams. All that they typically observe is their small world and the twisted fantasy of television/movies/commercials. Sure, it feels great to go into a department store and feel wealthy for a day, wear expensive things and feel better about yourself, but most poor people buying designer status symbols - this is what it is really all about. Living a fantasy with no real benefit to their actual social, economic, or productive member of society status.
- cafard 13y agoThere is a good deal I disagree with in the post, and there is one point that I think is missing. Most of us on HN have usually lived in a world with a margin of security, where $1 saved at the end of the week might be $1.05 this time next year. Below a certain level of security, that's not something one can count on. It could just be another $1 swept away in the next disaster. Someone who has seen enough bust cycles will likely get into the habit of spending it while it's there.
- tunesmith 13y agoI think one of the hardest systems to break out of is that of the "vicious cycle". It's very challenging when outputs feed into each other like that. What I remember about being poorer is that vicious cycles are far more common when you are poor. You need the used car to be able to get to the job that will give you the money to afford the used car. The struggles of poverty are full of cycles like that. The only way to break out of a vicious cycle is to shock the system, which tends to mean an asymmetric infusion of force - in poverty's case, that is usually the form of cash (or debt). It's the sort of action that is traumatic, and it often looks like it doesn't make sense. It's usually a short-term pain in exchange for the hopes of long-term improvement. "Breaking the cycle" is usually a traumatic, difficult action. Now, I don't know much about buying a $2500 purse - it's hard to defend something so specific. But I do know that the forces that break cycles can look ridiculous or shameful in some way. A sudden windfall that you didn't "deserve", accepting help from a stranger in a way that feels humiliating, being selfish in a way that is not accepted in your social circle, showing "status", etc. I am just reluctant to judge those choices from the outside, because I firmly believe that the poor have to deal with these cycles more than people of means, and that sometimes it takes a desperate act to break out of them.
- Casseres 13y agoI don't care if someone has a $2,500 handbag. It's whether or not they have a $1 attitude or a $2,500 attitude - that I care about and primarily judge people on. The author's mother had the right attitude (the determination) to help her neighbor. I know several people who can get things done and get what they want. They aren't rich or buy expensive things, they just have the determination to get an answer, find the right person, discover the right process, etc. I think the author associated correlation with causation.
- SloughFeg 13y agoGood to see hackers care about SOCIAL JUSTICE now.