9 ms·

“Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken”

106 points by tormeh 12y ago

chaostheory 12y ago
> The closest Planned Parenthood [family planning clinic] to me is three hours. > Nobody likes poor people procreating, but they judge abortion even harder.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  Nobody likes poor people procreating, but... Don't go by what they say or how they act: from the decisions they make, it's clear that TPTB derive a great deal of value from the existence of vast and increasing numbers of poor people. Sure, they'd probably prefer to just impoverish more of the middle class, but the procreation of the poor works as well.
  - chaostheory 12y ago
    To better understand her writing, you have to think of it as "how poor people feel", and not whether or not it fully reflects reality. Also depending in what part of the country you live, you will be judged harshly for abortion (and not just by the lower class); even in many parts of California. People tend to forget that the only liberal parts of CA are the SF Bay Area and the LA metro.
  - zo1 12y ago
    To anyone that doesn't already know (I had to look it up). TPTB stands for "The Powers That Be".
swatow 12y ago
>I make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don't pay a thing and a half this week instead of just one thing? It's not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn't that I blow five bucks at Wendy's. It's that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be. I have a hard time believing this statement. I know that being poor in the US is very tough, but the author's statement that it is impossible to go from being poor to not-poor doesn't ring true. For example, doesn't the author expect that the full time school they are doing is going to have some financial payoff in the future?
- chaostheory 12y ago
  > Nobody gives enough thought to depression. You have to understand that we know that we will never not feel tired. We will never feel hopeful. We will never get a vacation.
  - current_call 12y ago
    Why is the author going to school?
    - chaostheory 12y ago
      To better her situation. I agree with you. I'm just pointing that people aren't (always) rational and I was referencing a quote that may give you a clue as to why. Look at bdcravens comment as well.
  - swatow 12y ago
    The fact that you answered me with this quote confirms something that I suspected but wasn't sure enough to put down in my first post: The author is being unclear about whether the statements she's making are things she claims are true, or things she claims poor people (incorrectly) think are true. These are two very different things, and mixing them together leads to confusion and error.
    - ejk314 12y ago
      I feel like she was pretty clear on that point; the whole first post was her explanation of what she was thinking/feeling when she made 'poor' decisions. The second portion, in response to criticism, was her justification of that mindset.
      - swatow 12y ago
        I didn't see much clarity on this issue in either part. Furthermore, the responses to my post are evenly split too: bdcravens, mrow84, chaostheory and twisties vs monk_e_boy, rayiner and x0x0.
known 12y ago
Scientists have discovered that being poor actually impairs our cognitive abilities. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/the-lasting-impacts-of-po_n_4170124.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/the-lasting-impacts...
- TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
  Link to the source: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/46/18442.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/110/46/18442.abstract Relevant quotes from the abstract: Adults with lower family income at age 9 exhibited reduced ventrolateral and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity and failure to suppress amygdala activation during effortful regulation of negative emotion at age 24. ... The findings demonstrate the significance of childhood chronic stress exposures in predicting neural outcomes during emotion regulation in adults who grew up in poverty.
joelhooks 12y ago
When our first son was born 17 years ago I was making $10/h. My wife got WIC, and used medicaid. We told the government that she lived with her mom and that I was a deadbeat. We needed the help, and my low-wage job would have been prohibitive. $10/h actually wasn't too bad in '98 for a single dude. I had an apartment, ate, had utilities paid, with enough left over for beer, weed and cigarettes. It was rough, but definitely not hopeless. Not all of the decisions we made were good (lol, by a long ways), but enough of them were. I never expected to be poor forever, which makes a huge difference. There were spans of depression where I felt like giving in and just accepting my lot in life, but punched through and kept grinding. Thankful for that.
- morgante 12y ago
  > I had an apartment, ate, had utilities paid, with enough left over for beer, weed and cigarettes. That actually sounds pretty great. You covered your necessities and had a few luxuries. Heck, I make an order of magnitude more than minimum wage, but my life doesn't sound much more glamorous than that. If poor people are able to afford food, housing, and small luxuries (cigarettes), is life really so bad?
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    Poor people lack mobility and flexibility, though. The poor life, at least as I lived it, was not excessively austere, but it was stifling and the slightest disruption could bring it all crashing down.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - Retra 12y ago
        You cannot save money you don't have.
  - rcoder 12y ago
    If you're making an order of magnitude more than minimum wage that puts you at $72.50 per hour, or about $145k per year. That might not sound like a lot to the regulars on this site, but it's almost triple the median US household income ($52k) and should put you comfortably in the middle class in almost any developed part of the world. You also probably don't have to worry about getting sick or injured (health insurance and sick leave are basically assumed in most careers that pay >$100k/year), getting access to money (whether savings or credit) for emergencies, or being able to support a loved one when they have problems. There's nothing "glamorous" about scraping by month to month, working an hourly job with no benefits or paid leave, or having to lie to get access to social services to support your family. It might not be as bad as living in medieval-era poverty, but it's still miles away from your six-figure professional lifestyle. Life can be (and often is!) fine day-to-day when you're poor, but the complete lack of an effective safety net means the difference between "doing okay" and "living on the street with no options" is razor-thin.
falcolas 12y ago
I feel stupidly lucky that I got to where I am today. I was living in a friend's apartment with about $100 in "savings" and no job prospects in a town where I knew one person. Now, I own a house, work as a software developer and get paid nearly stupid amounts of money. Luck, a few good people (Brian, we still appreciate the $100!), and a natural affinity for computers are all that separate me from working those same minimum wage jobs and living hand to mouth. However, having crossed that line in both directions has also made me aware that even with all of that, I'm still only a few months of unemployment away from being homeless again. I only hope that the startup I work for doesn't go under, and that if it does I can find another good paying job.
- twisties 12y ago
  Do you feel the need to remedy this injustice, when, as you claim, the difference between you and a poor person is luck?
  - TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
    Across a population this kind of 'bad luck' can have huge economic costs, and is a massive drag on innovation and productivity. It's not just about personal stories. Falcolas might not have been able to borrow $100, and would likely have ended up somewhere very different. And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer. You might think 'There are others' - and you'd be right. But the effects scale. If enough people don't get a break, opportunities shrink across the landscape.
    - stegosaurus 12y ago
      'And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer.' Not only the startup economy. Brief thought experiment: Imagine two people. Person A is a car mechanic. Person B is a software developer. Neither are employed but both are more skilled and likely more efficient than each other in their respective fields. Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy it, but because they can't afford to pay each other. This is a vast oversimplification (in this case, they could just directly barter and exchange no funds, or even if they did exchange funds $50 would flow one way and right back the other). But the economy dies with the middle class. When no-one can afford to partake in services, we all suffer.
rayiner 12y ago
This bit is great: > We’re aware that we are not “having kids”, we’re “breeding”. We have kids for much the same reasons that I imagine rich people do. Urge to propagate and all. Nobody likes poor people procreating, but they judge abortion even harder.
- zo1 12y ago
  I don't understand how individuals can bring new, innocent life into this world... With an uncertain economic outlook, or without at least a stable financial base to care for them. #Edit: I'd honestly like to hear some comments/feedback about the individuals that disagree with what I said above.
  - anon4 12y ago
    Individuals did it when there was nearly no food and you could get eaten by lions in your sleep. Humans are also one of the few species of mammals that can get pregnant year-round. Our breeding works in a shotgun approach - make as many as you can and hope that one makes it. Coupled with the fact that we have large heads that make birthing one of the most difficult among mammals, it's very unoptimised. But it works. I'm not saying it's rational by any means, I'm just pointing out things.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    My wife and I are ambitious people, "planners" from childhood who got the grades, got the degrees, and got the high-paying jobs. But our daughter, who was, um, "unplanned," brings us more joy than any of those accomplishments. And the wonderful things about human existence is that having kids and making families is accessible to almost everyone.
    - pen2l 12y ago
      I suggest people have a baby as soon as they can -- early 20s. The later you do it, the more problems occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#mediaviewer/File:Down_risk_by_maternal_age.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#mediaviewer/File:... This pictures explain it nicely. But really, there are a lot of other reasons, scientific literature has a lot to say about that. Don't do it your 30s, do it in your 20s.
sametmax 12y ago
I started to read "cell phone", "car" and "kids" and stopped caring. I started with very few money. Then I manage to have my own company. Then I got broken after the war in Mali. And when you are young with no money, you don't need a cell phone, you don't need a car, and you don't make children. You get your life in order, then you go for the expensive stuff. People think it's normal to have these. Guys, it's not even normal to have electricity and water : these are the luxury of 20 % of the world. So stop spending in things you don't need before you can afford them, then complain. A car is a luxury. You got bikes, public transport, legs... Cell phone is a luxury. Yes, even when you are looking for a job. Unless you can find a phone bill costing 2$/month, which I do. Kids are a luxury. Not a right. Not a must have. Something you do when you can give them a decent living. Or you don't make them.
- mercer 12y ago
  I find that whenever I'm inclined to unsympathetic to the experience of another person, it's best to stop and remind myself that most people try their best to be good and happy, and care for those that are close to them, and that perhaps I'm just missing something. In this particular case, I'd argue that in many areas of the USA, cars are not a luxury, they're essential to moving around in the (to me) odd car-based infrastructure. Cell phones are also not a luxury, even here in Europe, which is why most homeless people have one. Kids are also not a luxury, because, as the author argues, context and basic human needs make it all but impossible for many (most) humans to keep from procreating, accidentally or otherwise. I think it's intellectually lazy to apply your own situation to others without considering their particulars. Sure, there are times where you can conclude that someone 'deserves' their lot in life, but I've found much more often than not that this lot is a result of external factors, and concluding that it isn't is dangerous, arrogant, and easy. Edit: I'd add that judging others in this manner often hinges on the assumption that willpower is somehow just a choice, where in actually there's a lot of evidence that it's not, at least in large part.
  - sametmax 12y ago
    In theory yes, in practice, if you observe around you, people in debt are (very) often the ones with early children, loans, 200$ phone bills and more. I've seen plenty people having money problems, even caused by health problems or accidents. The ones to get out of it are the ones that stop spending in materials everybody else claim are mandatory untill they get better. And no, a cell phone is not mandatory. I lived without it for years. And no, a car is not mandatory. If you are in an area requireing a car, move in another area. If you don't, you are making the explicit choice to spend more money for the luxury of staying here. And no, accidental kids are not a good excuse when you got condom, pills, emergency pills and eventually abvortion. My GF had an abvortion once. It was terrible. Still better than having a family in distress. Of course, you can always find extrems cases, like somebody raised in a very religious family, forced to keep a baby, or somebody with a love one to care in an hospital. But it's rare. I lived in Europe, Africa, travelled to Asia, America south and north. In the US or the West Europe, most people ARE, in fact, responsible for their debts. I'm not talking about people in the street. These are a very different situation. I'm talking about this everyday poverty, that of course nobody choose to be in voluntarly, but are the results of life priorities directly imported from TV, magazins and supermarkets.
gyardley 12y ago
Sounds like there's not much point in helping the poor, then, because they're just going to cock it up. I disagree - I think poor people are indeed capable of making good decisions and planning long-term - but what other point are you supposed to take away from her article?
- twisties 12y ago
  I think the point is that poor people aren't poor because they cock everything up, but because social structures and the very belief that they will cock things up is what denies them the opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty.
- pharke 12y ago
  The point I took away from the article seemed to be emphasized by these two statements that she made: >And honestly, I wouldn’t even mind the degradations of my work life so much if the privileged and powerful were honest about it. If they just admitted that this is simply impossible. >I’m not saying that someone doesn’t have to scrub the toilets around here. All I’m saying is that maybe instead of being grossed out by the very idea of toilets, you could thank the people doing the cleaning, because if not for them, you’d have to do it your damn self. As a society, we make poverty into an inescapable and self-reinforcing cycle by attaching such a large stigma to it. The working poor are performing the work necessary to prop up the rest of our civilization while we spit on them for holding that station. We need to admit that that attitude is a problem and then we need to work to change it. Any honest work can be rewarding in itself but only so long as it is recognized as honest and valuable work. Part of that recognition must be to receive fair compensation in the form of a living wage that covers expenses and allows for saving money towards the future but it also must include respect from the people that benefit by your services. If we all had to invest our energies in producing, packaging, and preparing every morsel of food that passed our lips, cleaning and maintaining every part of our homes, workplaces, and vehicles, or have a hand in the creation or maintenance of any of the thousand other parts of our daily lives that must all exist and function in perfect order for us to simply get on with it, we'd all be less able to perform the other activities required for the continuance of our society in its present state. This is simple division of labour, it's been with us since we chipped our first flint. The concept is a simple one: either we all survive or none of us survive. If we all invest even a little bit of effort in keeping that maxim at the front of our minds I believe we really can have a better world tomorrow and the day after that. It's only when you begin seeing people as expendable extras, just another replaceable part, that things begin to fall apart. We're all human, we all deserve a fair chance, and a second one, so help someone, say thank you, and stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.
lifeisstillgood 12y ago
Slightly tangential but the image of hundreds of people flocking to a free dentistry service in a giant hall not merely horrified me (look, you are American, you should realise that the rest of the rich world looks at you the same way guests at a cocktail party would look at a merchant banker who just arrived having not changed his clothes or bathed in six months) Anyway - horrible image. But it does strike me as the likely way forward for providing affordable health care. I suspect that many of the inefficiencies in our delivery of healthcare are around throughputs at diagnosis (hard to fix) at preperTion and delivery of the non drug intervention. In other words, stop persuading people to go individually for flu jabs, just tell everyone there will be a fair outside Sainsburys.
paganel 12y ago
> Or what if, God forbid, the car breaks down or you break a bone? I'm not going to add anything meaningful about "breaking a bone" and universal healthcare, but when it comes to a car breaking down there's something to be said about how the American car-culture and its suburban-centered development is actively at work against America's poor people. Not sure how that can be remedied in the short- to medium-term, but something needs to change about how urban planning is done.
- rcoder 12y ago
  My wife is a transportation planner with ~10 years' experience working with city and regional governments all over the US. As she has explained to me, urban planning (esp. in denser cities) is very much about increasing density, improving transportation options (e.g., walk/bike/transit), and ensuring neighborhood access to essential services (groceries, medical care, etc.). Equity is a huge concern for most planners as well. The problem isn't so much "improving urban planning" as "making elected officials and taxpayers listen to what the planners are saying".
- PhantomGremlin 12y ago
  Yea, suburbia is expensive. You need to drive everywhere. A tank of gas is $50, and that's a lot of money even if you're not "poor".
  - rhino369 12y ago
    Only if you don't include housing costs and increased costs for stuff like food and materials. Yuppies (like myself) drive up rent prices anywhere near public transit. Ghettos are cheaper than suburbia but the trade off is less security and selling your kids future down the toilet.
nkzednan 12y ago
(Note, I'm a software engineer in California but this is based on what I've heard from others/read) Something else that I've heard from other people/read about is how basically it takes money to save money. For instance, most of us have bank accounts that don't charge any monthly fee and we're fine having to keep a minimum of $25 or so in the account. But if you're poor, that's a lot of money to keep locked up, which is why my guess is that a lot of people don't have bank accounts. They then have to cash their checks at places that take a good sized bite out of each pay check. People living pay check to pay check also likely can't wait the few days it takes for a bank to clear checks. It seems like there's got to be a better way of paying people who don't have a bank account so that they can access the money right away and don't have to pay fees. From what I've heard, you can be on food stamps/other assistance but if you cross a certain line in terms of income you can't qualify anymore, instead of gradually diminishing as one makes more.
- gizmo686 12y ago
  I have no experience with this, but is it really that difficult for a business to pay its employees in cash if requested?
- uiri 12y ago
  > It seems like there's got to be a better way of paying people who don't have a bank account so that they can access the money right away and don't have to pay fees. I think it is called "cash". Turning a piece of paper (ie: a paycheque) into cash costs money and so does turning cash into a piece of paper (ie: a money order to pay rent or a utility bill). The banking system isn't free. It is much more profitable for the bank to prey on the poor who have no capital to offer up and who have no time to research their different banking options than it is for a bank to offer affordable services to low-income customers. Cash costs money to mint and print as well but that's hidden in seigniorage, taxes and inflation. There are payroll cards (in lieu of cheques) for employees without bank accounts but, since the card issuer's true customer is the employer, they often hit employees with high fees for everything which end up costing more than a bank account would.
Mz 12y ago
Excerpt: At one chain I was required to sign a contract stating that I was an at-will employee, that I would be part-time with no benefits, and that if I took another job without permission I would be subject to termination because the company expected me to be able to come in whenever they found it necessary. And yes, this is legal. Yeah, that sort of crap needs to stop. Also, we need to make it possible for average folks to become homeowners again. Also, this Obamacare crap: I am not a fan. Make it a government benefit or butt the hell out of whether or not I buy insurance. Thanks. (In case you missed it, I have been homeless for three years and counting. I think I have more hope than this woman describes having, but I got that by walking away from my corporate job. I was able to do that because I was a military wife for a lot of years. So I still alimony and, in theory, access to free medical care. I still have things that are kind of a throw back to the 1950's way of life. Plus six years of college and other assets that have given me maneuvering room that most poor people lack.)

106 points by tormeh 12y ago

> The closest Planned Parenthood [family planning clinic] to me is three hours. > Nobody likes poor people procreating, but they judge abortion even harder.

jessaustin 12y ago
Nobody likes poor people procreating, but... Don't go by what they say or how they act: from the decisions they make, it's clear that TPTB derive a great deal of value from the existence of vast and increasing numbers of poor people. Sure, they'd probably prefer to just impoverish more of the middle class, but the procreation of the poor works as well.
- chaostheory 12y ago
  To better understand her writing, you have to think of it as "how poor people feel", and not whether or not it fully reflects reality. Also depending in what part of the country you live, you will be judged harshly for abortion (and not just by the lower class); even in many parts of California. People tend to forget that the only liberal parts of CA are the SF Bay Area and the LA metro.
- zo1 12y ago
  To anyone that doesn't already know (I had to look it up). TPTB stands for "The Powers That Be".

swatow 12y ago

>I make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don't pay a thing and a half this week instead of just one thing? It's not like the sacrifice will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn't that I blow five bucks at Wendy's. It's that now that I have proven that I am a Poor Person that is all that I am or ever will be. I have a hard time believing this statement. I know that being poor in the US is very tough, but the author's statement that it is impossible to go from being poor to not-poor doesn't ring true. For example, doesn't the author expect that the full time school they are doing is going to have some financial payoff in the future?

chaostheory 12y ago
> Nobody gives enough thought to depression. You have to understand that we know that we will never not feel tired. We will never feel hopeful. We will never get a vacation.
- current_call 12y ago
  Why is the author going to school?
  - chaostheory 12y ago
    To better her situation. I agree with you. I'm just pointing that people aren't (always) rational and I was referencing a quote that may give you a clue as to why. Look at bdcravens comment as well.
- swatow 12y ago
  The fact that you answered me with this quote confirms something that I suspected but wasn't sure enough to put down in my first post: The author is being unclear about whether the statements she's making are things she claims are true, or things she claims poor people (incorrectly) think are true. These are two very different things, and mixing them together leads to confusion and error.
  - ejk314 12y ago
    I feel like she was pretty clear on that point; the whole first post was her explanation of what she was thinking/feeling when she made 'poor' decisions. The second portion, in response to criticism, was her justification of that mindset.
    - swatow 12y ago
      I didn't see much clarity on this issue in either part. Furthermore, the responses to my post are evenly split too: bdcravens, mrow84, chaostheory and twisties vs monk_e_boy, rayiner and x0x0.

known 12y ago

Scientists have discovered that being poor actually impairs our cognitive abilities. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/the-lasting-impacts-of-po_n_4170124.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/28/the-lasting-impacts...

TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
Link to the source: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/46/18442.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/110/46/18442.abstract Relevant quotes from the abstract: Adults with lower family income at age 9 exhibited reduced ventrolateral and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity and failure to suppress amygdala activation during effortful regulation of negative emotion at age 24. ... The findings demonstrate the significance of childhood chronic stress exposures in predicting neural outcomes during emotion regulation in adults who grew up in poverty.

joelhooks 12y ago

When our first son was born 17 years ago I was making $10/h. My wife got WIC, and used medicaid. We told the government that she lived with her mom and that I was a deadbeat. We needed the help, and my low-wage job would have been prohibitive. $10/h actually wasn't too bad in '98 for a single dude. I had an apartment, ate, had utilities paid, with enough left over for beer, weed and cigarettes. It was rough, but definitely not hopeless. Not all of the decisions we made were good (lol, by a long ways), but enough of them were. I never expected to be poor forever, which makes a huge difference. There were spans of depression where I felt like giving in and just accepting my lot in life, but punched through and kept grinding. Thankful for that.

morgante 12y ago
> I had an apartment, ate, had utilities paid, with enough left over for beer, weed and cigarettes. That actually sounds pretty great. You covered your necessities and had a few luxuries. Heck, I make an order of magnitude more than minimum wage, but my life doesn't sound much more glamorous than that. If poor people are able to afford food, housing, and small luxuries (cigarettes), is life really so bad?
- nitrogen 12y ago
  Poor people lack mobility and flexibility, though. The poor life, at least as I lived it, was not excessively austere, but it was stifling and the slightest disruption could bring it all crashing down.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - Retra 12y ago
      You cannot save money you don't have.
- rcoder 12y ago
  If you're making an order of magnitude more than minimum wage that puts you at $72.50 per hour, or about $145k per year. That might not sound like a lot to the regulars on this site, but it's almost triple the median US household income ($52k) and should put you comfortably in the middle class in almost any developed part of the world. You also probably don't have to worry about getting sick or injured (health insurance and sick leave are basically assumed in most careers that pay >$100k/year), getting access to money (whether savings or credit) for emergencies, or being able to support a loved one when they have problems. There's nothing "glamorous" about scraping by month to month, working an hourly job with no benefits or paid leave, or having to lie to get access to social services to support your family. It might not be as bad as living in medieval-era poverty, but it's still miles away from your six-figure professional lifestyle. Life can be (and often is!) fine day-to-day when you're poor, but the complete lack of an effective safety net means the difference between "doing okay" and "living on the street with no options" is razor-thin.

falcolas 12y ago

I feel stupidly lucky that I got to where I am today. I was living in a friend's apartment with about $100 in "savings" and no job prospects in a town where I knew one person. Now, I own a house, work as a software developer and get paid nearly stupid amounts of money. Luck, a few good people (Brian, we still appreciate the $100!), and a natural affinity for computers are all that separate me from working those same minimum wage jobs and living hand to mouth. However, having crossed that line in both directions has also made me aware that even with all of that, I'm still only a few months of unemployment away from being homeless again. I only hope that the startup I work for doesn't go under, and that if it does I can find another good paying job.

twisties 12y ago
Do you feel the need to remedy this injustice, when, as you claim, the difference between you and a poor person is luck?
- TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
  Across a population this kind of 'bad luck' can have huge economic costs, and is a massive drag on innovation and productivity. It's not just about personal stories. Falcolas might not have been able to borrow $100, and would likely have ended up somewhere very different. And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer. You might think 'There are others' - and you'd be right. But the effects scale. If enough people don't get a break, opportunities shrink across the landscape.
  - stegosaurus 12y ago
    'And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer.' Not only the startup economy. Brief thought experiment: Imagine two people. Person A is a car mechanic. Person B is a software developer. Neither are employed but both are more skilled and likely more efficient than each other in their respective fields. Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy it, but because they can't afford to pay each other. This is a vast oversimplification (in this case, they could just directly barter and exchange no funds, or even if they did exchange funds $50 would flow one way and right back the other). But the economy dies with the middle class. When no-one can afford to partake in services, we all suffer.

rayiner 12y ago

This bit is great: > We’re aware that we are not “having kids”, we’re “breeding”. We have kids for much the same reasons that I imagine rich people do. Urge to propagate and all. Nobody likes poor people procreating, but they judge abortion even harder.

zo1 12y ago
I don't understand how individuals can bring new, innocent life into this world... With an uncertain economic outlook, or without at least a stable financial base to care for them. #Edit: I'd honestly like to hear some comments/feedback about the individuals that disagree with what I said above.
- anon4 12y ago
  Individuals did it when there was nearly no food and you could get eaten by lions in your sleep. Humans are also one of the few species of mammals that can get pregnant year-round. Our breeding works in a shotgun approach - make as many as you can and hope that one makes it. Coupled with the fact that we have large heads that make birthing one of the most difficult among mammals, it's very unoptimised. But it works. I'm not saying it's rational by any means, I'm just pointing out things.
- rayiner 12y ago
  My wife and I are ambitious people, "planners" from childhood who got the grades, got the degrees, and got the high-paying jobs. But our daughter, who was, um, "unplanned," brings us more joy than any of those accomplishments. And the wonderful things about human existence is that having kids and making families is accessible to almost everyone.
  - pen2l 12y ago
    I suggest people have a baby as soon as they can -- early 20s. The later you do it, the more problems occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#mediaviewer/File:Down_risk_by_maternal_age.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#mediaviewer/File:... This pictures explain it nicely. But really, there are a lot of other reasons, scientific literature has a lot to say about that. Don't do it your 30s, do it in your 20s.

sametmax 12y ago

I started to read "cell phone", "car" and "kids" and stopped caring. I started with very few money. Then I manage to have my own company. Then I got broken after the war in Mali. And when you are young with no money, you don't need a cell phone, you don't need a car, and you don't make children. You get your life in order, then you go for the expensive stuff. People think it's normal to have these. Guys, it's not even normal to have electricity and water : these are the luxury of 20 % of the world. So stop spending in things you don't need before you can afford them, then complain. A car is a luxury. You got bikes, public transport, legs... Cell phone is a luxury. Yes, even when you are looking for a job. Unless you can find a phone bill costing 2$/month, which I do. Kids are a luxury. Not a right. Not a must have. Something you do when you can give them a decent living. Or you don't make them.

mercer 12y ago
I find that whenever I'm inclined to unsympathetic to the experience of another person, it's best to stop and remind myself that most people try their best to be good and happy, and care for those that are close to them, and that perhaps I'm just missing something. In this particular case, I'd argue that in many areas of the USA, cars are not a luxury, they're essential to moving around in the (to me) odd car-based infrastructure. Cell phones are also not a luxury, even here in Europe, which is why most homeless people have one. Kids are also not a luxury, because, as the author argues, context and basic human needs make it all but impossible for many (most) humans to keep from procreating, accidentally or otherwise. I think it's intellectually lazy to apply your own situation to others without considering their particulars. Sure, there are times where you can conclude that someone 'deserves' their lot in life, but I've found much more often than not that this lot is a result of external factors, and concluding that it isn't is dangerous, arrogant, and easy. Edit: I'd add that judging others in this manner often hinges on the assumption that willpower is somehow just a choice, where in actually there's a lot of evidence that it's not, at least in large part.
- sametmax 12y ago
  In theory yes, in practice, if you observe around you, people in debt are (very) often the ones with early children, loans, 200$ phone bills and more. I've seen plenty people having money problems, even caused by health problems or accidents. The ones to get out of it are the ones that stop spending in materials everybody else claim are mandatory untill they get better. And no, a cell phone is not mandatory. I lived without it for years. And no, a car is not mandatory. If you are in an area requireing a car, move in another area. If you don't, you are making the explicit choice to spend more money for the luxury of staying here. And no, accidental kids are not a good excuse when you got condom, pills, emergency pills and eventually abvortion. My GF had an abvortion once. It was terrible. Still better than having a family in distress. Of course, you can always find extrems cases, like somebody raised in a very religious family, forced to keep a baby, or somebody with a love one to care in an hospital. But it's rare. I lived in Europe, Africa, travelled to Asia, America south and north. In the US or the West Europe, most people ARE, in fact, responsible for their debts. I'm not talking about people in the street. These are a very different situation. I'm talking about this everyday poverty, that of course nobody choose to be in voluntarly, but are the results of life priorities directly imported from TV, magazins and supermarkets.

gyardley 12y ago

Sounds like there's not much point in helping the poor, then, because they're just going to cock it up. I disagree - I think poor people are indeed capable of making good decisions and planning long-term - but what other point are you supposed to take away from her article?

twisties 12y ago
I think the point is that poor people aren't poor because they cock everything up, but because social structures and the very belief that they will cock things up is what denies them the opportunity to pull themselves out of poverty.
pharke 12y ago
The point I took away from the article seemed to be emphasized by these two statements that she made: >And honestly, I wouldn’t even mind the degradations of my work life so much if the privileged and powerful were honest about it. If they just admitted that this is simply impossible. >I’m not saying that someone doesn’t have to scrub the toilets around here. All I’m saying is that maybe instead of being grossed out by the very idea of toilets, you could thank the people doing the cleaning, because if not for them, you’d have to do it your damn self. As a society, we make poverty into an inescapable and self-reinforcing cycle by attaching such a large stigma to it. The working poor are performing the work necessary to prop up the rest of our civilization while we spit on them for holding that station. We need to admit that that attitude is a problem and then we need to work to change it. Any honest work can be rewarding in itself but only so long as it is recognized as honest and valuable work. Part of that recognition must be to receive fair compensation in the form of a living wage that covers expenses and allows for saving money towards the future but it also must include respect from the people that benefit by your services. If we all had to invest our energies in producing, packaging, and preparing every morsel of food that passed our lips, cleaning and maintaining every part of our homes, workplaces, and vehicles, or have a hand in the creation or maintenance of any of the thousand other parts of our daily lives that must all exist and function in perfect order for us to simply get on with it, we'd all be less able to perform the other activities required for the continuance of our society in its present state. This is simple division of labour, it's been with us since we chipped our first flint. The concept is a simple one: either we all survive or none of us survive. If we all invest even a little bit of effort in keeping that maxim at the front of our minds I believe we really can have a better world tomorrow and the day after that. It's only when you begin seeing people as expendable extras, just another replaceable part, that things begin to fall apart. We're all human, we all deserve a fair chance, and a second one, so help someone, say thank you, and stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

lifeisstillgood 12y ago

Slightly tangential but the image of hundreds of people flocking to a free dentistry service in a giant hall not merely horrified me (look, you are American, you should realise that the rest of the rich world looks at you the same way guests at a cocktail party would look at a merchant banker who just arrived having not changed his clothes or bathed in six months) Anyway - horrible image. But it does strike me as the likely way forward for providing affordable health care. I suspect that many of the inefficiencies in our delivery of healthcare are around throughputs at diagnosis (hard to fix) at preperTion and delivery of the non drug intervention. In other words, stop persuading people to go individually for flu jabs, just tell everyone there will be a fair outside Sainsburys.

paganel 12y ago

> Or what if, God forbid, the car breaks down or you break a bone? I'm not going to add anything meaningful about "breaking a bone" and universal healthcare, but when it comes to a car breaking down there's something to be said about how the American car-culture and its suburban-centered development is actively at work against America's poor people. Not sure how that can be remedied in the short- to medium-term, but something needs to change about how urban planning is done.

rcoder 12y ago
My wife is a transportation planner with ~10 years' experience working with city and regional governments all over the US. As she has explained to me, urban planning (esp. in denser cities) is very much about increasing density, improving transportation options (e.g., walk/bike/transit), and ensuring neighborhood access to essential services (groceries, medical care, etc.). Equity is a huge concern for most planners as well. The problem isn't so much "improving urban planning" as "making elected officials and taxpayers listen to what the planners are saying".
PhantomGremlin 12y ago
Yea, suburbia is expensive. You need to drive everywhere. A tank of gas is $50, and that's a lot of money even if you're not "poor".
- rhino369 12y ago
  Only if you don't include housing costs and increased costs for stuff like food and materials. Yuppies (like myself) drive up rent prices anywhere near public transit. Ghettos are cheaper than suburbia but the trade off is less security and selling your kids future down the toilet.

nkzednan 12y ago

(Note, I'm a software engineer in California but this is based on what I've heard from others/read) Something else that I've heard from other people/read about is how basically it takes money to save money. For instance, most of us have bank accounts that don't charge any monthly fee and we're fine having to keep a minimum of $25 or so in the account. But if you're poor, that's a lot of money to keep locked up, which is why my guess is that a lot of people don't have bank accounts. They then have to cash their checks at places that take a good sized bite out of each pay check. People living pay check to pay check also likely can't wait the few days it takes for a bank to clear checks. It seems like there's got to be a better way of paying people who don't have a bank account so that they can access the money right away and don't have to pay fees. From what I've heard, you can be on food stamps/other assistance but if you cross a certain line in terms of income you can't qualify anymore, instead of gradually diminishing as one makes more.

gizmo686 12y ago
I have no experience with this, but is it really that difficult for a business to pay its employees in cash if requested?
uiri 12y ago
> It seems like there's got to be a better way of paying people who don't have a bank account so that they can access the money right away and don't have to pay fees. I think it is called "cash". Turning a piece of paper (ie: a paycheque) into cash costs money and so does turning cash into a piece of paper (ie: a money order to pay rent or a utility bill). The banking system isn't free. It is much more profitable for the bank to prey on the poor who have no capital to offer up and who have no time to research their different banking options than it is for a bank to offer affordable services to low-income customers. Cash costs money to mint and print as well but that's hidden in seigniorage, taxes and inflation. There are payroll cards (in lieu of cheques) for employees without bank accounts but, since the card issuer's true customer is the employer, they often hit employees with high fees for everything which end up costing more than a bank account would.

Mz 12y ago

Excerpt: At one chain I was required to sign a contract stating that I was an at-will employee, that I would be part-time with no benefits, and that if I took another job without permission I would be subject to termination because the company expected me to be able to come in whenever they found it necessary. And yes, this is legal. Yeah, that sort of crap needs to stop. Also, we need to make it possible for average folks to become homeowners again. Also, this Obamacare crap: I am not a fan. Make it a government benefit or butt the hell out of whether or not I buy insurance. Thanks. (In case you missed it, I have been homeless for three years and counting. I think I have more hope than this woman describes having, but I got that by walking away from my corporate job. I was able to do that because I was a military wife for a lot of years. So I still alimony and, in theory, access to free medical care. I still have things that are kind of a throw back to the 1950's way of life. Plus six years of college and other assets that have given me maneuvering room that most poor people lack.)