[HN Gopher] On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who ...
___________________________________________________________________
On the Experience of Being Poor-Ish, for People Who Aren't
Author : maxwelljoslyn
Score : 642 points
Date : 2021-03-01 06:04 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (residentcontrarian.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (residentcontrarian.substack.com)
| DataWorker wrote:
| Many live in daily terror of becoming homeless or worse. I feel
| like social isolation matters more than wealth in making people
| feel secure. Many homeless people had money, good jobs,
| education, but most lacked community. Some say they find a family
| on the streets, for better or worse. It's not all social, neither
| is it all financial.
| tester34 wrote:
| Poority adds a lot of "over_head"
|
| The more over_head you have, then it's harder to get out of it.
|
| You're unlikely to put your free time into math / computer
| science when you're after exhausting 8 / 12h shift in warehouse
|
| Also your "environment" may not help you too.
|
| Before I worked at gov't-ish job and my parents tried hard to
| convince me that "this is the greatest thing because gov't jobs
| offer ""safety"" and "decent salary"". Thanks god that I had
| access to the internet and knew the reality.
| jancsika wrote:
| > The value of their work doesn't factor in as much - An
| administrative assistant might touch every department in the
| company every day and facilitate a massive amount of work, but
| they still don't get paid much - it's hard to justify when you
| could hire and train up someone to do the same thing nearly as
| well with very little difficulty.
|
| This seems like it exposes a bias toward thinking in terms of
| large businesses. (That may be a reasonable bias, at least in the
| U.S. where it seems like big organizations are only getting
| bigger and small ones are going out of business.)
|
| In a small business there is less likelihood that the
| administrative work is meticulously spec'd out. So if an
| administrative assistant in a small business touching every
| department, _and_ they are good, chances are work has been
| offloaded onto them in a way that moves them further from
| "assisting" and closer to "inexpendable employee who is
| constantly fleshing out an underspecified business model and
| iteratively improving it."
|
| I can think of examples where a small business didn't realize
| this (and some where they went out of business for that reason).
| But only a handful few where this didn't happen.
|
| If competent administrative assistants in small businesses had
| any idea of their true value, they'd demand their salary be
| doubled.
|
| Same logic wrt sales reps. Although in that case, companies at
| least seem to have realized it and responded by the weirdo
| pattern of a) providing incentives to attract the best reps, and
| then b) firing the best reps after a few years on the grounds
| it's too expensive to keep paying them for consistently hitting
| their goals and collecting the incentives!
| dvirsky wrote:
| Very good post, just one thing caught my eye:
|
| > it's very small (think >900 sqft)
|
| That is an average middle class apartment for a family where I
| come from (Israel). Thinking about it as being small is so
| American :) And BTW you don't get to live in a _house_ in Israel
| unless you inherited it, are rich, bought it >20 ago before the
| real estate boom, or willing to drive a couple of hours in each
| direction to get to work (which is ridiculous in a tiny country
| with a 100% tax on gas)
|
| If you're poor you'll have to do with ~600 sqft or so for a
| family. And I know there are countries where even this is rather
| spacious.
| JayPeaEm wrote:
| Grew up homel
| ourmandave wrote:
| SciFi author John Scalzi did a couple blog posts on being poor.
| (His readership added some he'd missed.)
|
| https://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
|
| https://whatever.scalzi.com/2015/09/03/being-poor-ten-years-...
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| I have a possibly stupid question...
|
| Parts of america have really really high housing costs... like
| really high... and a bunch of people want to live there, and a
| lot of people there are poor (atleast compared to housing
| prices).
|
| Why the hell do you still build single family houses, or one/two
| floor buildings in areas where you need to fit a bunch of people
| (eg. both photos in the article)? I'm from a former socialist
| country, and housing for working families back then looked (still
| does) like this:
|
| https://i.imgur.com/pmpcaOL.png https://i.imgur.com/YowiKVe.png
|
| Modern buildings look a bit better, with ground floors for
| commercial use, and underground parking, but still:
|
| https://i.imgur.com/AFpUiuX.jpg
|
| I understand single or two floor buildings if you're building
| something in rural alabama... there's a lot of space there, and
| the land is cheap.... But places like san francisco? That, I
| don't get.
| olalonde wrote:
| > Why the hell do you still build single family houses, or
| one/two floor buildings in areas where you need to fit a bunch
| of people (eg. both photos in the article)?
|
| Mostly bad regulations like rent control and zoning.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| This question was made for me.
|
| It's not the market; obviously there's demand for higher
| density housing, and were it allowed, people would make more of
| it. It's almost always local regulations that make producing
| such housing difficult, or more commonly, flat out impossible.
|
| Most American residential land is zoned for exclusively large
| single family homes in big lots. This is true even in most
| major metro areas. You can read a little bit about this here in
| this article that compared American zoning with Japanese
| zoning: https://marketurbanism.com/2019/03/19/why-is-japanese-
| zoning...
|
| The gist of how it got this way is: racism and classism. The
| racism used to be more relevant, these days the classism is.
| You see, if you require that to live in a neighborhood, you
| must be able to own or rent a property with a minimum amount of
| land, it's easy to keep out people of lesser economic
| resources. A poorer family that might be willing to live an
| apartment in a nicer area will find that no such housing exists
| there, and being unable to afford a full house, they are
| excluded, hence the term 'exclusionary zoning'. This also has
| the effect of keeping those poor kids out of local schools.
|
| So yeah, it's economic segregation that America pretends
| doesn't count as segregation somehow, even though the effects
| are plain as day.
| LandR wrote:
| In your first phot, In my country those sort of buildings would
| be viewed _very_ negatively, many would expect the people in
| them to be poor, lower-class, living off benefits etc. There
| are lots of stereotypes about the sort of people that live in
| those type of buildings.
|
| People would NOT want that sort of building near their home
| worried it would lead to more crime, lower property prices etc.
|
| Now, your last modern building. People would pay a small
| fortune to live in something like that in a trendy area in a
| city...
|
| They would probably be classed as luxury apartments, come with
| a large rents or buying costs.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| But the idea is still the same... just the outside look has
| changed.
|
| Build a 5, 10 story apartment building, underground parking,
| and fit hundreds of people in a space, that would otherwise
| be used by 5-10 houses (20, 30 people).
|
| First photos are from belgrade, when that design was "modern"
| from 1960-1980s, and the last, modern one is from ljubljana,
| built recently.
| wooger wrote:
| Lots of people want to live there. But do the people who live
| there (and own property there) want lots more people to live
| there? Not really no.
|
| And in some cases definitely not anywhere near them.
|
| Cities work well at a certain size and population, but the
| services and infrastructure never get upgraded to match big
| increases in population like tower blocks.
|
| Not to mention the view from people's houses across the bay
| will be gone as soon as high rises are built. If I'm happy with
| the status quo & I have lots of money, why would I ever stop
| doing everything possible to maintain it?
| Hard_Space wrote:
| I'm a British immigrant to Bucharest, nearly 4 years, and I
| live in a slightly smaller version of the housing in your
| images, a 4-floor 1986 block in the south of the city, adjacent
| to Vacaresti park.
|
| In London, this type of housing might be depressing, but here
| it is normal -- and when you take away 'neighbor envy', it's
| hard to express the difference it makes to one's own sense that
| you've reached some equilibrium in your environment and your
| life.
|
| The TV ads here might be full of people in detached houses, but
| that kind of residence is very rare in this country - at least
| in cities like Bucharest and Cluj.
|
| In short, Bucharest folk are used to it, and practically no-one
| in the US is. For them, it's 'the projects'.
| dagw wrote:
| _But places like san francisco? That, I don 't get._
|
| Short answer. The people who already live there don't want to
| be neighbors with those sorts of buildings and any politician
| that suggests it will be voted out of office.
| Mauricebranagh wrote:
| A counterpoint - You then get jerry built high rises built to
| minimum standards and smaller rooms which leads to tragedy's
| like Grenfell tower.
|
| Also with covid and the rise of home working you know what
| people realy realy want? a second room for an office and a
| Garden (Yard).
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| > A counterpoint - You then get jerry built high rises
| built to minimum standards and smaller rooms which leads to
| tragedy's like Grenfell tower.
|
| The old socialist buildings are made form reinforced
| (rebar) concrete... even the inside walls... and outside
| walls.. and sometimes even balcony ledges. Even occasional
| gas explosions usually just blow out some windows.
| refurb wrote:
| The answer for a city like San Francisco is all the available
| land was built on 70 years ago (with a few exceptions).
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| Yeah, but SF also still mandates low densities in most of its
| neighborhoods: https://sfplanning.org/resource/zoning-height-
| and-bulk-distr...
|
| It could change that to help make housing more affordable,
| and chooses not to.
| 14 wrote:
| Just read this this morning before work and thought how I can
| relate to having to fix my own cars and now I am better off and
| don't car stress any more but if forced me to learn a lot along
| the way. Then at work my coworker is telling me she was at the
| transmission shop and Toyota and car still isn't running well. I
| look and knew right away she had a bad air filter. 25$ back on
| the road full power
| munificent wrote:
| _> This is because apartments at both of these levels quite
| accurately assume that you can't afford a lawyer - while it's
| normal to put down a month or two worth of rent as a security
| deposit, it's much less normal to get it back; the apartment
| complex has no reason to give back thousands of dollars they can
| simply keep._
|
| This is a really key point and this behavior affects many many
| aspects of life.
|
| Money is liquid power. Power is the ability to get others to do
| what you want. Unfortunately, power imbalances between people
| form an unstable equilibrium. As soon as you have a tiny bit more
| power over someone, the first thing you can do is use it to force
| them to give you more. This is, I believe, the seed of almost all
| inequality in the world.
|
| One of the main accelerators of this imbalance is _threat_
| --applying power without spending it. If power worked exactly
| like money where to get you to do something I had to pay you,
| then there would be natural counter-balance towards equality. Any
| time someone had more power, the only useful thing they could do
| with it would to be spend it, which would lower their power and
| raise someone else's.
|
| Unfortunately, you can often get what you want without spending
| any power simply by making it clear to someone that you _could_
| force them if you wanted to. They will capitulate and do what you
| want while you don 't actually have to put any real effort in and
| squander any power.
|
| In the example here, the apartment complex _can_ afford a lawyer
| to argue about returning a security deposit and you can 't. So
| you acquiesce to not getting your deposit back _and they don 't
| have to pay for a lawyer_. They acquire a bit more power (cash)
| from you without having to spend anything to get it.
|
| It's a shitty part of how life works.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > it's best to spend no more than 30% of your monthly gross
| income on housing-related expenses, including rent and utilities
|
| Everyone who lives in London, NYC, or many other large cities,
| will at that this point laugh loudly and stop taking the article
| seriously.
| [deleted]
| bregma wrote:
| This is interesting.
|
| My wife is a case worker for the county welfare office. She deals
| with "those" people for a living and sees first-hand every day
| all the real and imagined shit spouted by righteous ideologues.
| She tells me that amongst those living in poverty, wealth is
| measured in terms of friends and family. Any money you come into
| is spent immediately, often on gifts to build status within your
| social network.
|
| It's only when you move into the middle classes that wealth
| starts to be measured in terms of money. Budgeting, saving,
| trying to get more and planning for a future when you have none
| is not something someone in poverty does: it's something someone
| not in poverty does when they have no money. Trying to climb the
| social ladder by accumulating more money marks you as middle
| class.
|
| The third layer has enough money (but of course always try to get
| more because that's the game). Their concept of wealth tends to
| be oriented towards legacy: collecting artworks, donating to
| cultural or research endeavours, political involvement. Wealth is
| measured by what you leave behind, and money is wasted if it just
| goes to trust funds or taxes.
|
| When I was a student, and for many years after, I had no money. I
| had enough to keep a squalid roof over my head and three square
| meals a week. I had no money and no savings but I did not live in
| poverty because I had a plan to earn and save and move up in the
| world. I had no money but I did not live in poverty.
|
| I think it's important for people who are trying to leave their
| legacy by getting politically involved in eliminating poverty to
| understand that their world is not _the_ world. They need to
| understand how the definition of wealth for those in poverty is
| not the same as their definition of wealth, and without
| understanding that difference they are bound for failure from the
| start.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Any money you come into is spent immediately, often on gifts
| to build status within your social network.
|
| Rather, _for immediate survival_ and whatever bill is the most
| urgent to make even a tiny partial payment to avoid cut-off and
| the occasional comfort food as a treat if you can afford it
| somehow.
|
| Source: had a rough patch in my life a couple years ago
| (thankfully over now).
| pessimizer wrote:
| The reason you spend money as soon as you get it when you're
| poor is 1) because when you're poor you accumulate debts, both
| formal and informal, and 2) when you're poor you know other
| people who are poor and who need things.
|
| Thinking poor people _like being poor because they value what
| 's really important - friends and family -_ is like poverty
| version of the "magical negro" trope. Poor people value friends
| and family because they need each other to survive. People with
| no money problems don't _need_ anyone.
|
| edit: I honestly believe in a harsher version of this, in that
| for me the difference between friend and acquaintance is that a
| friend has sacrificed their comfort or safety for yours when
| they didn't have to. A friend is an acquaintance that has been
| tested by your bad circumstances and passed. If you're wealthy,
| you are rarely in truly bad circumstances, so when they happen,
| you might find yourself surrounded by acquaintances. Poor
| people know who to trust because they've had to trust them
| before.
| sethammons wrote:
| > Thinking poor people like being poor because they value
| what's really important - friends and family - is ...
|
| I didn't read that poor people like being poor - I read they
| have a different value system (and reading into it, the
| different value system being rooted in being poor). You are
| injecting something else into the narrative.
| fossuser wrote:
| I think you're arguing a bit of a strawman and you and the
| person you replied to probably agree with each other.
|
| The accumulated debts, and helping out each other makes sense
| given the needs of the community and dependence on each other
| for survival. It's interesting that could translate into a
| gift culture for social status hierarchy, and it kind of
| makes sense. Even if in the perverse case it can make it
| harder for any individual to get out of poverty - it makes it
| easier for them to survive while they're in it.
| pnutjam wrote:
| Mathew Desmond talks about this some in his book, Evicted.
| https://www.evictedbook.com/
|
| Basically poor people have to have room mates and they have
| to interact with the people around them, so they tend to
| form quicker bonds of friendship. Middle class people can
| afford to go it alone.
| musingsole wrote:
| > People with no money problems don't need anyone.
|
| > Poor people know who to trust because they've had to trust
| them before.
|
| I feel like this is what's been contributing to collapsing
| communities in the US more than political tensions or
| whatever other specter one could point to. The lack of real,
| repeated need of others. A relative abundance on wealth leads
| to using money-based services to fix issues instead of
| relationships (which have cumbersome overheads). That leads
| to the creation of more services and until we've generally
| forgotten how to have a community, only services and
| consumers.
| ajfjrbfbf wrote:
| > I had enough to keep a squalid roof over my head and three
| square meals a week.
|
| Three meals a week sound pretty miserable. I assume that's a
| typo :)
| krageon wrote:
| It's a lot better than one meal a week. It's all relative :)
| bregma wrote:
| No. It was pretty miserable.
| endoelenar58 wrote:
| Many people are just doomed to failure from the start. All that
| motivational talk and grooming goes to nothing if you came form
| impoverished background.
| dionidium wrote:
| I was glad to see a large section on cars. When I was poor this
| was a constant issue for me and it wasn't until the very end of
| my time in poverty that I realized I could just _not have one_.
| Obviously, you can 't "just not have a car" while not changing
| anything else about your life. My realization was that I _should_
| change literally anything and everything about my life to
| maximize my ability to survive without owning a car. That is to
| say, owning a car for a poor person is _far more onerous_ than
| changing your life around to not need one. This means choosing
| housing, employment, child care and everything else around the
| decision not to own a car.
|
| This decision was life-changing.
|
| Cars are very expensive. If you are poor, you cannot afford to
| own one. Full stop. Think of basically anything else that costs
| as much as a car costs and then ask yourself if a poor person
| should buy that thing. Your answer will be no. It should also be
| "no" with respect to a car.
|
| The writer of course highlights the relevant tradeoffs. Owning a
| car is very convenient, so most poor people think, well, however
| hard it is to own this thing it's still a net win. My experience
| tells me this is wrong. It was not a net win and I wish I'd have
| figured that out sooner.
| sethammons wrote:
| Queue my first truck. My uncle gave it to me. S-15. The bench
| seat didn't lock, it slid forward and back when breaking or
| accelerating. Hard left hand turn and the keys would fly from the
| ignition and land on tue floorboard of the passenger seat (this
| did not turn off the truck). During the same hard left, some
| electrical thing would connect or un-short and my radio would
| temporarily turn on until the end of the turn. It ate oil and did
| not have a dip stick; thus you estimated how much oil to add
| daily. If the headlights were on, the gas gauge was zero. Oh, and
| it could only be pop-started (meaning I had to always park on a
| hill and get the thing rolling to get the ignition to pop start -
| it did not always work). A boyfriend of my mom's showed me how to
| arc the starter bolts with a screwdriver- and I could now start
| it on flat surfaces! That was great. I eventually didn't add
| enough oil and seized the engine. This is Southern California
| fwiw.
| aembleton wrote:
| Does the US or California not have some sort of annual check to
| ensure that cars on the road are roadworthy? Something like
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOT_test
| buescher wrote:
| In the US vehicle registration and vehicle inspection are
| state-by-state. California, while known for its strict
| emissions requirements, has no other vehicle inspection.
| Surprised me when I moved there!
| iamatworknow wrote:
| New York requires annual car inspections that include
| emissions testing as well as a basic safety check (tires,
| brakes, head/signal/brake lights, horn, fluids, and a few
| other things). They "only" cost $20 but they put a color
| coded sticker on your windshield that is easily seen by
| passing cops, who will pull you over if you have the wrong
| color. Getting the inspection done is a bit of a pain in the
| ass, too, as because at least for me it would usually require
| taking at least an hour off of work to drive the car to a
| garage who could do it. And the garages seemed to often run
| out of inspection stickers, as they're provided by the state
| and only allot so many to each garage that does inspections.
| It was kind of a nightmare in its own way.
|
| And if your car failed inspection, you were obligated to fix
| it, of course. I knew a lot of people who would postpone the
| inspection as long as possible and hope they didn't get
| pulled over. When I was pretty poor I had a car that
| frequently had its check engine light on (an instant fail for
| the inspections). It was cheaper to buy an OBD reader online
| that could reset the check engine light long enough to get
| the inspection done than it was to fix the problem.
|
| When I moved to Georgia which only does the emissions test
| (and only in the Atlanta area counties), I was surprised by
| how quick it was. Perhaps coincidentally, I see many orders
| of magnitude more cars engulfed in flames on the roads in
| metro Atlanta than I ever did in New York.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >I see many orders of magnitude more cars engulfed in
| flames on the roads in metro Atlanta than I ever did in New
| York.
|
| Because cars in New York rust out structurally before much
| else can go wrong.
| iamatworknow wrote:
| This is a valid point, haha.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Would being forced to choose between a car that doesn't have
| government permission to drive and paying way more than
| market value for something that does from a BHPH lot make the
| situation of the person you're replying to better?
|
| Also what he described is pretty out there even by poor
| person standards. What you usually see is people failing
| inspection for rust holes in non-structural areas, cracked
| light lenses, leaky exhausts and non-functional evaporation
| emissions systems.
|
| In my experience: Lightbulbs are cheap and get fixed. Driving
| with bald tires sucks and people do get them replaced when
| they are showing cords. Brakes are important cheap enough and
| get fixed (helps that pretty much any shade tree mechanic
| will do them for parts plus a few bucks). People need to get
| to work. They don't try to put stuff off until payday because
| they like driving a car that might fail on them.
| sethammons wrote:
| You have, in California, a thing called Smog Check. An
| attempt to remove old, polluting cars - you can't register
| your car without it. Lots of these check centers will let you
| pay under the table to let them hook up a better car to
| falsify your results. If a car is obviously not road safe, a
| cop can pull you over.
| leetcrew wrote:
| in maryland you can just pay a nominal fee/fine each month to
| defer your emissions test. it adds up, but it takes a long
| time to equal the cost of replacing a catalytic converter.
| carapace wrote:
| ( s/Queue/Cue/ )
| [deleted]
| u678u wrote:
| > If you came from a family that did pretty well financially,
| went to college and then immediately started to do pretty well
| yourself, it's hard to get any kind of context for what life is
| like at lower income levels.
|
| America is hugely segregated by wealth and class. Where I come
| from you wouldn't need to read an article to describe what its
| like to be poor as there would be enough examples in your
| neighborhood, church or school. Americans live in these bubbles.
|
| Its a problem where I would rather live in a working class
| neighborhood and send my kids to public schools when all my
| colleagues live in fancy towns with fancy schools. I like to keep
| my kids real but maybe I'm capping them.
| yibg wrote:
| I grew up poor (first gen immigrant family, the poor kind), so I
| empathize with the points raised. At the same time I don't really
| understand how some / a family can be (outside of some
| circumstances like health issues, disabilities etc) repeatedly
| behind on water bills or other necessities.
|
| For the first few years my family had an income of ~$1000 / month
| (back in the 90s). My mother wasn't legally allowed to work and
| my father was on a stipend. The whole family lived in a studio
| apartment, that 900 sq ft place in the article would've been huge
| for us. Our car was a $1200 tiny little rust bucket, but it ran.
|
| Sometimes I see documentaries about people living in poverty and
| going pay check to pay check, yet the kids are wearing Nikes and
| playing on iphones. Being poor was definitely stressful though,
| and I'm definitely grateful that stress isn't part of my life
| anymore.
| [deleted]
| pessimizer wrote:
| > the kids are wearing Nikes and playing on iphones.
|
| This is investment. If your kids are socially rejected at
| school and can't get on the internet, are they going to be
| better off in the long term or worse off?
|
| If you are poor, looking poor is not going to help you up, it's
| going to drive you farther into poverty. It's the same impulse
| that makes lower-middle class parents go into debt to put
| braces on their kids' perfectly functional teeth (in the US.)
| Your kids are going to have to impress fellow students, charm
| their teachers, get into colleges, and interview for jobs. A
| bunch of people who don't see class are going to see your
| crooked teeth.
| yibg wrote:
| I understand there is social pressure, but then pretty much
| anything can be bucketed under investment by this standard.
| Is a nice car and nice house also investment so the kids
| don't get rejected at school? At certain level of income,
| sacrifices need to be made, and I would argue Nikes and
| iPhones are luxuries, not necessities. e.g. you can get a
| pair of good quality shoes that costs less than Nikes, and a
| functional smart phone for less than an iphone.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Not to mention: an iphone (or any smartphone really) is a
| really efficient investment. I'm not sure, but for a few
| hundred dollars you have a very good device already.
|
| Compare that to my own growing up, and we had separate costs
| for a TV, a radio, we would save up for a walkman or CD
| player, internet started off as dial-up at the library, then
| a PC. We'd buy CD's with games and things like Encarta, we'd
| record or rent films on a video recorder, etc etc etc. And
| all of those things had to be shared.
|
| Now, with a smartphone, you have all of the above and then
| some - at a one time investment. Each of those individual
| devices back then cost the same as a single decent smartphone
| does nowadays.
|
| I really don't see the issue. I mean I kinda get the
| objections, because for some reason smartphones are still
| considered luxury items (but only if you're poor), but it's
| such an empowering tool (and a source of distraction, which
| is something everyone needs).
| bkirkby wrote:
| i don't think it's smartphones that are considered luxury
| items, it's the $1000 iphones when a $50 android will
| provide all those benefits just fine.
| doliveira wrote:
| But then you can't even browse the web properly with
| these, though. Not with all those fat Javascript-heavy
| pages and the whole "RAM is cheap" prevailing development
| mentality nowadays.
| leetcrew wrote:
| the 80/20 rule still applies. $50 is probably too low of
| a price point, but the example works if you compare a
| $250-400 android phone to a $1000 apple/samsung flagship.
| I could buy those phones if I wanted to, but I'm getting
| by just fine with my pixel 4a. hell, my pixel 2 was still
| perfectly serviceable but for the lack of security
| updates.
| doliveira wrote:
| $50 to $400 is basically one order of magnitude, though.
| So the argument changes a lot.
| leetcrew wrote:
| kinda, but kinda not. $1000 is still a lot more than
| $400. I consider $600 to be a meaningful amount of money.
| it's definitely not a good move to spend that much on a
| phone if $600 matters to you. in any case, this
| conversation is drifting off the rails (or was derailed
| from the start). the iphone SE exists and sells for $400.
| with apple's track record for updates, that might be the
| best value on the entire market right now. I wouldn't
| consider it irresponsible for anyone to purchase that
| phone. I'm also not sure I believe that large amounts of
| poor people are buying brand new $1000 iphones anyway.
| most poor people I know are using whatever cheap phone
| happens to be supported by a local MVNO.
| devdas wrote:
| All that you needed to break down was the car failing, or
| someone falling sick.
|
| Minimum wage in the US hasn't kept pace with inflation for
| decades, and rents, school fees and the costs of medication
| have kept rising even faster. Banks charge even higher
| overdraft fees, so the small joys of a pair of branded shoes or
| a fancy phone are affordable, but the longer term gains aren't
| likely to be in reach.
|
| Escaping poverty needs 20 years of everything going right.
| https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/economi...
| mc32 wrote:
| True the minimum wage hasn't kept up. That's mainly due to
| exporting manufacturing offshore.
|
| People want cheap crap but they also want to keep wages high.
| Bernie understood this which is why he was against trade
| agreements and cheap labor.
|
| Now people are used to paying $5 for a Tshirt. They want to
| get paid $15 an hour but also balk at a $20 Tshirt. You can't
| have it both ways.
| acdha wrote:
| > True the minimum wage hasn't kept up. That's mainly due
| to exporting manufacturing offshore.
|
| That's partially true but this trend has been widespread
| well outside of manufacturing, too. There's no shortage of
| companies engaged in wage theft, converting full time
| positions to contract, changing benefits plans to shift
| more cost to the workers, etc. in every sector. Programmers
| are in high demand but even in tech, consider how many
| companies contract out core competencies or, especially,
| have things like helpdesk jobs which pay considerably less
| than they used to and no longer have a promotion path.
|
| There's been a well-funded push to roll back the New Deal
| since around the end of WWII. This has included funding
| libertarian think tanks, religious denominations which
| encourage self-reliance and distrust of the government,
| etc. One big factor feeding into demand for cheaper goods
| is that people are acting rationally in a world where their
| income lags behind their parents or grandparents at the
| same age.
|
| Kevin Kruse wrote a book about this a while back which is
| good for understanding some trends in the 20th century:
|
| http://kevinmkruse.com/book/one-nation-under-god/
| telesilla wrote:
| Being poor is doable as long as there are no disasters or gross
| unfairness. Every student who gets buy without parental help
| will attest.
| yibg wrote:
| I think it's also about trade offs that are made. For
| example, TV dinners (from an article in another thread here)
| for us was not a staple, it was a luxury. They kept for a
| long time, but they were also high cost to calorie ratio. We
| got the cheapest cut of meat we can in bulk and frozen it.
| tstrimple wrote:
| While I'm not suggesting your method isn't more
| economically efficient, it also requires time and money
| investment. When I was "poor", my parents would often both
| work late and it wasn't uncommon to not see them until
| later in the night if at all before bed. Many nights my
| brother and I would make our own dinners. Dealing with
| large cuts of frozen meat takes planning and skill that
| microwaveable dinners do not.
| acdha wrote:
| Also equipment: one thing working with our local mural
| aid group has really underscores is how many people have,
| say, a microwave or hot plate but not a working stove or
| enough capacity to store bulk food purchases. That's
| definitely not true of everyone, of course, but it's a
| real barrier for some people- especially, say, a newly-
| single mother who can't feed an infant rice and beans.
| yibg wrote:
| Yes absolutely. Definitely different trade offs to be
| made depending on circumstance.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| I grew up like you but you and I weren't poor.
|
| If your parents immigrated like mine (wife legally not allowed
| to work, dad on stipend) then your father (and possibly mother)
| was very well educated in your home country, then immigrated to
| the US, finished his studies or did a temporary training and
| then took a well paying job.
|
| When having a $1000 a month income is known to everyone to be
| temporary and you know a well paying job is on the other side,
| that's not the kind of poor the author is talking about. When
| you know you will have money soon you can make all sorts of
| wise choices to handle a period of low liquidity. When you
| don't know that, you can't make any of those choices.
| yibg wrote:
| We definitely weren't at the very bottom of the ladder. We
| had some stable income, a roof over our heads and food on the
| table.
|
| Looking back the financial position we were in was clearly
| temporary. But at the time it wasn't so clear. It wasn't
| obvious that once graduated, my father would be able to find
| a well paying job (they were also pretty ignorant on the job
| market at the time). We definitely had financial stress in
| the family, which bled out to me all through childhood.
|
| I consider myself fortunate and I had a legs up in multiple
| dimensions. Educated parents, stable home life etc. But like
| I said, very grateful that type of stress is not a part of my
| life now.
| mc32 wrote:
| Some poor families handle it better than others. A lot has to
| do with the parents and how they manage the situation
| psychologically.
|
| There is peer pressure on the kids (and even parents), so they
| upend Maslow's pyramid to their detriment.
|
| Some of it may be educational --home ec is not taught in many
| schools. Some of it is cultural (advertising) and some of it is
| propaganda (we're Americans, we must have a TV and consume
| brand names!)
|
| I recall in Japan if you went on the dole you first had to sell
| your 'luxury' items before getting government support. It
| indicated you had to be in need and not supplementing or aiding
| poor economic decisions.
| bluGill wrote:
| > in Japan if you went on the dole you first had to sell your
| 'luxury' items before getting government support. It
| indicated you had to be in need and not supplementing or
| aiding poor economic decisions.
|
| I agree with the theory, but what is a luxury? Cheap shoes
| are penny wise and pound foolish as i've discovered. (though
| some expensive brands last no longer than the cheap ones).
| You can't really do anything today without an internet
| connection - school or apply for a job, and you are expected
| to answer your cell phone when called, so some form of smart
| phone is required and if you have an iphone it isn't worth
| enough used to be worth selling to buy a cheaper phone...
| lc9er wrote:
| > Nikes and playing on iphones.
|
| This is the kind of statement you hear from conservatives that
| blame poor people for their poverty.
|
| There's a number of reasons. Because when you churn through a
| dozen pairs of cheap no-name shoes, it ends up being more than
| just buying a better set of shoes. Maybe a relative gave you
| some Christmas money. Or maybe you got overtime for working an
| extra 20 hours.
|
| Being poor, you are constantly judged on your appearance, and
| it has a huge effect on how you are treated by retailers,
| government (police, social services, etc), teachers/school
| admins, and friends.
|
| When you're poor, everything you own is half broken, purchased
| used, worn thin. You most likely live in an area that has a
| high crime rate, is loud, has a long commute to your job, is
| dirty. You have access to terrible, low quality food. You skip
| doctors appointments (can't afford the time off or co-pays) and
| dental work. (American) society constantly blames you for your
| situation.
|
| Whatever the reason, poverty is a daily assault on your human
| dignity. It's incredibly difficult to escape. Sometimes, you
| have to say, "Screw it" and buy your kid the expensive shoes.
| That money won't get you out of poverty, but it may make you
| and your child happy for a bit.
| skinkestek wrote:
| > it seems like they hardly lie awake at night thinking about
| their iffy alternator much, if at all.
|
| Sometimes someone can help someone and score big at the same
| time. Here's a story that I heard from someone who was there:
|
| There was a small company that was in a position where they made
| money but not a lot so they saved on everything.
|
| At one point the owner caught whiff that one of the employees, -
| a master craftsman in his traditional craft - was struggling
| extra because of the car.
|
| So the ownwr told them to lease a brand new car to this
| particular employee.
|
| Accounting said wait-a-bit, we are considering each and every
| expense twice and you want to lease a car for this guy to use off
| work.
|
| Owner said yes.
|
| Doing that gave him two things:
|
| - his specialist stopped worrying about the car at work
|
| - he stayed there for a long time
|
| No, this time it is not a management-feel-good-story, I know the
| company and my friend was in the room arguing against the
| decision.
|
| Of course this might backfire (jealousy from other employees,
| people who stop caring anyway etc) which is why it should be used
| with caution.
| jschwartzi wrote:
| The employees who would be jealous are operating with a
| different definition of "fair." The common definition is that
| everyone gets the same thing, but a more humane definition is
| that everyone gets what they need. And if you switch from the
| former to the latter then the owner's decision becomes very
| fair. Everyone benefits from having the specialist focused on
| work. And the specialist gets what he needs too.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| As another ex-poor person: some of this is OK and some of it
| doesn't really ring true.
|
| E.g.
|
| > That's the drop-off you experience at the lower price levels -
| there's nothing between "This is a tiny but acceptable apartment"
| and "Slum apartments in stab-ville".
|
| I don't think this is true, and why would it be? Unless you're in
| an area where the housing market is cliffed for some legislative
| or regulatory reason. But most places, no, I've not seen this.
| You might have to put effort in to find nicer places on a budget,
| research areas, etc. but isn't that true of any purchase?
|
| It's true that when you're poor you never get close to those
| naive 'this is how much of your income to spend on rent'
| suggestions, but there are places that cover the whole spectrum.
|
| > Whichever you choose, a person of less-than-intermediate income
| has to be prepared to stick with the rental long-term, should
| things not go well. This is because apartments at both of these
| levels quite accurately assume that you can't afford a lawyer -
| while it's normal to put down a month or two worth of rent as a
| security deposit, it's much less normal to get it back; the
| apartment complex has no reason to give back thousands of dollars
| they can simply keep. This means every time you move, you pay
| something like a third to a month's wages for the privilege.
| Since breaking a lease often means you lose your privilege to
| live anywhere non-hellish, this means if you don't have cash
| reserves (more on these later*) at the exact right time of year,
| you might end up in the same place for another full year whether
| you like it or not.
|
| You stick with a rental longer term because of overheads, yeah,
| but I wouldn't go into a rental contract expecting with certainty
| to lose 100% of my deposit.
|
| Rather what happens is you get good at doing minor legal research
| and writing terse emails about it. Maybe many are scummy by
| default, but most roll when they see you've got even a little
| knowledge about what you're entitled to. That's a valuable skill
| for life in general, so it's something you should be learning to
| do regardless.
|
| > a person's pay is determined by how rare their skills are and
| how much demand there is for those skills. The value of their
| work doesn't factor in as much
|
| What's the value of a person's work that isn't just determined by
| the first part? What does the author think drives demand, if not
| the prospective value you provide to the various companies in the
| labor market?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Value, not demand. A nurse who helps stop 50 people from dying
| each week is doing very valuable work, but a talented lawyer
| helping to defeat valid class-action lawsuits (negative value
| work) is probably paid more.
| killtimeatwork wrote:
| You don't even need a nurse - a farmer is preventing multiple
| people from starving and a cleaner is preventing multiple
| deaths from parasites and infectious diseases.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| True, but those are less direct, so easier to sweep under
| the rug (cleaner... no pun _intended_ ), or dismiss with
| "but market forces" (farmer).
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| Healthcare is kind of a special case though, in that it's not
| really a free market (whether you think it should be or not).
| So the value of what medical professionals do isn't really
| signalled through. The lawyer has high value to the company
| that pays them, so they probably meet the first part exactly:
| rare skills in high demand.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| Okay, but now consider other monopsonies. There are plenty.
| What most people get paid is almost entirely decoupled from
| the net value they create, and oftentimes it's only
| tangentially related to the value they give to their
| employer.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| The labor market isn't fully efficient but I don't
| believe it's "almost entirely decoupled" from the value
| employees provide. If you provide with certainty $100k/y
| of value and your employer pays you $30k/y, there'd be no
| shortage of entities willing to bid up that price. Who
| wouldn't take profit within their risk tolerance? What
| mechanism do you think would prevent this from happening?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| * Barriers-to-entry - e.g., skills, ethical injunctions,
| psychological torment, qualifications...
|
| * Job security - some people are just too poor to go on
| the job market for a few weeks or months, meaning they
| don't have much leverage to get their employer to
| increase their pay...
|
| * Perverse incentives - some jobs are all about
| _destroying value_ , e.g. loan sharks, most of the
| advertising industry...
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8410489.stm (2009) has a short
| list.
|
| * Monopsony - what if your employer is the only one
| currently in a position to make that much from you (or
| all the competitors have already filled their positions)?
|
| I could go on, but I'm only scratching the surface of my
| surface-level knowledge.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| > * Barriers-to-entry - e.g., skills, ethical
| injunctions, psychological torment, qualifications...
|
| If these reduce the value you provide then that's as
| designed. How can you provide value without skills? How
| can you provide value by _not_ doing things you find
| unethical? These aren't inefficiencies of the market for
| labor, they're facets of it working exactly as desired.
|
| > * Job security - some people are just too poor to go on
| the job market for a few weeks or months, meaning they
| don't have much leverage to get their employer to
| increase their pay...
|
| Do you... quit your job before you look for a new one?
| Increase in pay levels for lower skilled jobs is not
| really about individual cases, but the aggregate. If
| Profession X generates more value than the current pay
| level, that increases general demand for Profession X,
| and reduces the time needed to match up with a new
| employer. Sure there's some thresholding involved, but
| not enough to 'entirely decouple' price and value.
|
| > * Perverse incentives - some jobs are all about
| destroying value, e.g. loan sharks, most of the
| advertising industry...
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8410489.stm (2009) has a short
| list.
|
| Eh this is pretty hand-wavey stuff. Loan sharks don't
| _destroy_ value from an economic perspective. Nor does
| advertising. Nor does banking. Societal problems though
| they might have.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _How can you provide value without skills?_
|
| This means that you can't model it as a liquid market.
|
| > _Do you... quit your job before you look for a new
| one?_
|
| I don't, because I don't work such long hours that I
| don't have the capacity to do anything after work. Some
| people have multiple jobs just to cover rent and food;
| adding a _third_ (looking for new jobs) isn 't always
| possible.
|
| > _Loan sharks don 't _destroy_ value from an economic
| perspective. Nor does advertising._
|
| Then economics is wrong. Wasting people's lives and
| attention is destroying value. Keeping people in debt,
| causing suffering... you're not extracting as much value
| out of people as they're losing. They're net negative.
| gjm11 wrote:
| I vigorously agree that some jobs destroy value on net,
| but the report described in the BBC's article is pretty
| unconvincing. I have the impression that the people who
| wrote it knew what conclusion they wanted before they
| began.
|
| As an example, they claim that the UK's top bankers and
| fund managers destroy about PS7.40 in value for every PS1
| they get in salary. How do they get that figure? They
| assign to those people ...
|
| * 100% of the predicted reduction in UK GDP from 2008 to
| 2014 as a result of the 2008 crisis (as measured by the
| difference between IMF forecasts immediately before and
| immediately after) * an "adjustment to reflect a loss of
| 5% of UK economic capacity between the onset of the
| crisis and 2020" (that sounds like double-counting to me,
| but I can't tell because they don't give any details) *
| 100% of an estimate of increased debt as a result of the
| crisis, obtained as the difference between an IMF
| forecast immediately after the crisis and the _UK
| government 's_ forecast immediately before it (sounds
| like more double-counting to me, and I bet the
| government's predictions are systematically more
| optimistic than the IMF's) * an "allowance for debt
| servicing costs on the additional debt incurred" * 50% of
| 1/6 of the tax revenue from the UK financial sector
| (treated as a pure positive to weigh against the pure
| negative of value destroyed by the 2008 crisis). The 1/6
| is because they guess 5/6 of the UK financial sector is
| retail rather than wholesale finance and consider the
| gains attributable to top bankers to be only in the
| wholesale part. The 50% is because not all of the tax
| paid by the wholesale financial industry is paid by, or
| otherwise attributable to, its top bankers. * 50% of 2.5%
| of the UK's GVA or "gross value added" as estimated by
| the ONS. The 2.5% is the ONS's estimate of how much
| London financial services contributed to GVA. The 50% is
| because not all of that is attributable to the top
| bankers. I don't know why they're using GVA here but GDP
| when estimating value destroyed by the 2008 crisis. * 50%
| of 50% of an estimate of post-tax earnings of finance
| workers in the City of London. Post-tax because they
| already counted tax revenue. 50% because not all the
| credit for those people having those jobs belongs to the
| top bankers. 50% because if they didn't have those jobs
| then they'd presumably have other jobs.
|
| The costs of the 2008 crisis are considered as a one-off.
| For the benefits, which are a recurring thing, they
| assumed a 20-year career for those bankers.
|
| Soooo many things about this look highly dubious to me.
| There isn't a 2008-scale crisis every 20 years. The 2008
| crisis was a global thing and we have no idea what
| fraction of it was the fault of people in the UK, versus
| what fraction of its effects were suffered by the UK.
| It's not at all clear that it's entirely attributable to
| "top bankers". Their measures of value destroyed by the
| crisis look very susceptible to double-counting and other
| errors. If there's a good reason for using GDP to reckon
| the loss and GVA to reckon the gain, it eludes me. So far
| as I can tell, the ONS's reckoning of the financial
| industry's contribution to GVA is looking only at things
| like how much revenue the financial industry gets for the
| services it provides, whereas the claimed benefits of the
| financial industry to the economy are all about things
| like providing liquidity, more efficient allocation of
| capital, etc., which they don't consider at all. Almost
| all the key numbers in their calculation are low-effort
| guesses: look at all those "50%"s.
|
| I would be 100% unsurprised if it turned out that top
| bankers' net contribution to the world is negative. But I
| don't think this report really tells me anything of value
| about whether that's so.
|
| That was the first profession in the report. I haven't
| looked at the others. I strongly suspect they are just as
| terrible as this one.
|
| Here's the actual report: https://neweconomics.org/upload
| s/files/8c16eabdbadf83ca79_oj... -- all the details are
| in Appendix 2.
| Aunche wrote:
| Value is relative to the labor pool. If you hired me to
| inject vaccines instead of a nurse, after some light training
| I might be able to stop 40 people from dying every week
| rather than 50. That doesn't mean I would be 80% valuable as
| a nurse. I'd be providing negative value because there are
| plenty of nurses who are also willing to do the same job.
|
| Also, if you consider class action lawsuits as overall
| positive value, then necessarily both sides of the lawsuit
| are producing positive value.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| By "negative value" I mean "the world would be better off
| if nobody did that", not "negative relative to the
| counterfactual where you didn't do it". The latter is good
| for individual decision-making, but it isn't very good for
| accurately compensating value contributed... unless we have
| some variety of UBI, but regardless, that's no longer
| capitalism; it's an inverse job auction.
|
| > _Also, if you consider class action lawsuits as overall
| positive value_
|
| I don't. But the vast majority of class action lawsuits
| I've seen have been valid, and the vast majority of class
| action lawsuits have paid out nowhere _near_ enough to even
| _discourage_ the behaviour, let alone compensate the
| victims. With a good class-action lawyer, class-action
| lawsuits just reduce your profit margin slightly, as a cost
| of "doing business".
|
| I can't imagine how you could think that I think that,
| unless we're working off drastically different models of
| how the world works.
| Aunche wrote:
| >The latter is good for individual decision-making, but
| it isn't very good for accurately compensating value
| contributed
|
| Why not? How could an economy function if it were based
| on real value as opposed to relative value? Farmers and
| water treatment engineers would all be billionaires and
| everyone would waste a lot of resources trying to become
| farmers and learning about water treatment. If you drive
| a truck of medical supplies, you'd make millions, but if
| you drive a truck of consumer goods, you'd make very
| little, despite doing the same work.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _and everyone would waste a lot of resources trying to
| become farmers_
|
| * There's only so much arable land, so people _couldn 't_
| do this.
|
| [?] Thus, people who wanted to become farmers but didn't
| have land would either give up, or innovate things like
| hydroponics.
|
| * There's only so much food people need to eat. Producing
| _more_ than that isn 't contributing value; in _this
| case_ , markets approximate that reasonably well (though
| with other problems, so many governments subsidise food
| production in some way).
|
| * People already waste a lot of resources trying to
| become tax-reduction lawyers or middle managers1 or gain
| other high-paid, useless jobs.
|
| > _If you drive a truck of medical supplies, you 'd make
| millions, but if you drive a truck of consumer goods,
| you'd make very little, despite doing the same work._
|
| Good point! This hypothetical system that hasn't had
| hundreds of years to work out the kinks has some
| potential issues. I wouldn't say it's worth dismissing it
| out of hand because of that, though; they don't seem like
| fundamental problems. For instance, the _current_ system
| already distinguishes between rapid medical
| transportation networks (e.g. organ motorcyclists) and
| regular ol ' freight.
|
| Before trying to solve these problems, we should work out
| how the (magical, instant, "everyone just decides to
| start doing it") introduction of such a system would
| change society. It's entirely possible that it would
| change enough to eliminate this problem, and introduce
| others in its place.
|
| ---
|
| 1: Middle management isn't _inherently_ useless - there
| can be useful hierarchies involving middle management, I
| 'm sure. In my personal experience, I haven't encountered
| any, and popular culture agrees with me so it's decent
| shorthand, but if your job title _is_ "middle management"
| and you have a genuinely useful job, this _isn 't a dig
| at you_. (Tax lawyers, though... offence intended.)
| Aunche wrote:
| I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting. There isn't
| a middle ground between a market economy and planned
| economy. In a market economy, a corporation's tax-
| reduction lawyer is always going to make more money than
| a nurse. You can reduce this disparity by reforming the
| tax system. However, the problem is that it's not
| politically advantageous to do so, so nobody does it.
|
| > There's only so much arable land, so people couldn't do
| this.
|
| Rather than invest in stocks, people would buy a small
| patch of land to grow their own food. This would not be
| an efficient allocation of capital.
|
| > There's only so much food people need to eat. Producing
| more than that isn't contributing value; in this case,
| markets approximate that reasonably well
|
| What makes nursing any different in this regard? There
| certainly is a healthcare distribution problem in the US,
| but it's not because nurses are being paid too little.
| Nurses in America make the same, if not more, than nurses
| in the rest of the world.
| ivanbakel wrote:
| >What's the value of a person's work that isn't just determined
| by the first part?
|
| The value of the work done, either in a physical sense (because
| it produces something of value) or in a societal sense (because
| it involves doing something of value).
|
| If you're the best hole-digger in the world, and people are
| constantly trying to hire you to dig holes so that they can
| fill them in, then you would be highly paid - but would your
| work be "valuable"?
|
| Probably very few people are true free-market believers when it
| comes to the idea of fair pay.
| chii wrote:
| > but would your work be "valuable"?
|
| yes, if somebody else would be willing to swap their hard
| earned "value" for it.
|
| The problem is when people making decisions to swap is not
| swapping their own personal "value" they accumulated
| themselves, but someone else's (usually the tax payers').
| jonathanstrange wrote:
| IMHO the problem is deeper than that. Economists often
| wrongly and silently presume that free market equilibria lead
| to desirable states of society but there is nothing in their
| theories that would warrant this. It works for simple trades
| (bargaining) but once you're at the level of institutions
| there is no need for a match between institutional needs and
| the preferences and desires of individuals in a society. For
| instance, to build a certain product a company needs a
| certain distribution of different types of work. These needs
| of the larger institution need not match individuals' life
| choices at all. Some jobs can even be so desirable that
| workers are willing to lose money in the long run (that's
| e.g. how Amazon benefits from selling the works of self-
| publishers who often overall lose money). Consequently, since
| people need to make a living, even in a fully functioning
| free job market there can be a substantially large number of
| people who are pressed into choices that make their lives
| miserable.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _If you 're the best hole-digger in the world, and people
| are constantly trying to hire you to dig holes so that they
| can fill them in, then you would be highly paid - but would
| your work be "valuable"?_
|
| If people get transcendent joy out of filling in holes, or
| the filling-in of holes otherwise matters to them, then this
| is valuable. In a real-world scenario, it's a bullshit job:
| https://www.strike.coop/bullshit-jobs/
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| _I don 't think this is true, and why would it be? Unless
| you're in an area where the housing market is cliffed for some
| legislative or regulatory reason._
|
| I have a friend who works in real estate and he tells me people
| in difficult circumstances pay a premium because of the risk of
| default and damage. The landlord needs more margin to cover
| those extra risks.
|
| He also told me you could never make money at the bottom end of
| the market if you have middle class sensibilities. It's pretty
| ruthless at the bottom.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| Right, but there are presumably people at all levels of risk,
| not just risky people who pay a premium vs non-risky people
| who don't. Reduced variance is good for landlords too, so
| there's definitely an incentive to accurately predict and
| make granular the risk profile/credit check/etc.
| leoedin wrote:
| I've seen this effect a few times with housing. When viewing
| either apartments or shared rooms, not being discerning enough
| at the advert stage has resulted in viewing some absolutely
| terrible places - damp, poorly heated, unmaintained, and the
| sense from interacting with the landlord that their MO is
| firmly "slumlord". The really surprising thing is that the rent
| demanded for these places is often not much less than the rent
| for a much nicer space in the same area of the city - maybe
| PS50-PS100/month.
|
| I think when supply and demand meets minimum wage you get an
| incredibly non-linear effect in bang for buck. I'm sure there
| are exceptions (the property market definitely has a negative
| survivorship bias where the nice cheap properties are never on
| the market for very long while the terrible ones are).
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| Rental housing is a very sketchy business full of very
| sketchy people. The fewer scruples a landlord has, the easier
| the money.
| notauser wrote:
| There is definitely non-linear pricing in the London housing
| market as one example.
|
| When I was last looking -
|
| Studio apartments and one bed room apartments rented for
| similar amounts, and so did two beds and three beds.
|
| But the price jump from one bed to two bed was much larger than
| any of the other jumps.
|
| You can speculate on many reasons why this might be the case
| (smallest size apartment for a family in the city, smallest
| size you can split with a friend, smallest size with space for
| an office).
|
| There are exceptions and I'm sure that more research time could
| help you find them.
|
| But one of the points made convincingly in the artle is that if
| you are poor you don't have a lot of energy, time or gas-money
| to do that kind of research.
| notahacker wrote:
| > But the price jump from one bed to two bed was much larger
| than any of the other jumps.
|
| That price jump isn't particularly surprising given London's
| one bed flats are competing against a vast number of
| individual rooms in shared properties rented out (which is
| regarded as a normal living arrangement in London, including
| for professionals, somewhat older people and to an extent
| couples). Obviously people who need an extra bedroom aren't
| really in that market, and the second bedroom is also easily
| [sub]let out separately.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| I mean, we can talk about price jumps between bedroom counts
| if you want but I'm not sure it's very relevant to the
| article, which is saying there's only "stabbyville" and
| "safe" places given other fixed requirements. If you need a
| studio in London, they exist all through the price spectrum,
| area spectrum, and other dimensions. I suspect the 'jump' you
| see from one bed to two is that, on average, two beds are in
| nicer areas, or they are houses rather than flats, freehold
| rather than lease, etc. Bedroom count is correlated with
| other features that also increase the average price. But that
| doesn't mean there aren't two beds in cheaper areas too.
|
| The typical tradeoff in London is price vs proximity to
| work/transport. For most people. Safety comes in at the very
| bottom end, but still you can live far out and commute. I'm
| not saying that's a pleasant experience, or that being poor
| is a pleasant experience in general, but the tradeoff and
| choice exists. If you have a job in central London that you'd
| commute to though, fact is you are already probably well off
| compared to most of the country. It's a bit like how student
| debt mostly affects the middle class. Same with expensive
| season tickets for the train.
| superbcarrot wrote:
| > But the price jump from one bed to two bed was much larger
| than any of the other jumps.
|
| The jump between sharing and a one-bed flat is certainly
| larger. A two-bed on two incomes is a pretty decent
| arrangement in London (if you're a couple for example); a
| one-bed on a single income is much much steeper.
| JanneVee wrote:
| >> That's the drop-off you experience at the lower price levels
| - there's nothing between "This is a tiny but acceptable
| apartment" and "Slum apartments in stab-ville".
|
| >I don't think this is true, and why would it be? Unless you're
| in an area where the housing market is cliffed for some
| legislative or regulatory reason. But most places, no, I've not
| seen this. You might have to put effort in to find nicer places
| on a budget, research areas, etc. but isn't that true of any
| purchase?
|
| The thing that I've noticed is that yes the sweet spot exists
| but the supply is always more limited. You have higher
| availability on living because it is so expensive that not
| everyone can afford it(or think it is worth it). And the cheap
| in not so good areas (not necessarily dangerous but gives e.g.
| longer commutes and has less services and so on) have a higher
| supply because of that. The sweet spot in good location and a
| good price is going to have all houses and/or apartments taken.
| Then the surprise happens, since supply is limited at this
| sweet spot the prices tend to rise so you get that cliff
| mentioned in the article.
| burlesona wrote:
| I've lived in small towns in Illinois and Texas, mid-sized in
| North Carolina, and big cities in Texas and California. That's
| enough to know that housing markets are wildly divergent across
| the US, and really can't be generalized.
|
| The author seems to be describing how things are in metro
| Phoenix. Having not lived there, I'd assume it's as described.
|
| I will say that my experience has been that there's a paradox:
| it should be much easier to get by as a poor person in small
| towns as everything costs a lot less, but paradoxically there's
| even less work to do so it's hard to even come up with the low
| local costs. In the end, poverty is always relative to the
| local market.
| simiones wrote:
| > > a person's pay is determined by how rare their skills are
| and how much demand there is for those skills. The value of
| their work doesn't factor in as much
|
| > What's the value of a person's work that isn't just
| determined by the first part? What does the author think drives
| demand, if not the prospective value you provide to the various
| companies in the labor market?
|
| The value of your work is "how much money would the company
| lose if _no one_ did the exact job I am doing ". This generally
| has 0 correlation to your wage, because in general a company
| will think in terms of "how much money would the company lose
| if _anyone else_ did the job this employee is doing ", which is
| a very different question. This is how it happens that many
| absolutely essential jobs, without which society would simply
| stop functioning, are also among the lowest payed. Probably one
| of the best examples is nurses, but also warehouse workers,
| transport people, construction workers, farm hands.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| I assume that when he talks about 'rarity' of skills he's
| talking about supply. Almost anyone can be a farm hand;
| supply is huge and individual workers are fungible. So wages
| are low.
|
| "how much money would the company lose if no one did the
| exact job I am doing" seems a bit of a moot point when it's
| not even close to being the case that no-one would do the job
| in question. _Expected_ value then approaches price paid as
| you weight in the probability involved.
| simiones wrote:
| Well, this is exactly what he explains as the reality, and
| I agree that this is how the job market works.
|
| However, that's not to say that it is a good state of
| affairs, or that it is the only way things could work. In
| fact, the purpose of workers' unions is exactly to stop
| this kind of thinking, and it seems like this may once
| again start spreading a bit, given the recent movements in
| Amazon and other places.
|
| The problem with this is that the company is using its
| leverage over workers to treat them as a commodity. If
| workers had more leverage, they could refuse the job unless
| they were paid a fair wage (the value of their work as I
| defined it above), but as it is, they are forced to compete
| with other workers since not working would see them and
| their families homeless and maybe even dying of hunger.
|
| With the current state of affairs, the company owners end
| up extracting much more value from their workers as profit,
| often by deliberately fixing the wage market (as we saw
| with the illegal SV "no poaching" deal for tech workers),
| or at least by seeking to attain geographical monopoly
| status in it.
| carmen_sandiego wrote:
| I'm not sure it's ever going to be the case at the very
| bottom of the skill continuum that workers won't be seen
| as a commodity given just how replaceable they are to the
| company. For some jobs you could have your whole
| workforce strike, fire them, and replace them the next
| day with a minor blip in productivity. The only thing
| that stops that is regulation or wider organization than
| just that particular worker segment, neither of which
| seem forthcoming in the US, at least.
| 1-more wrote:
| Time was we had a labor movement and you're right: it
| took extraordinary actions on both sides to move the
| state of affairs back then.
| simiones wrote:
| Well, showing up to work for someplace that did this used
| to be called "scabbing" and carried quite a bit of social
| stigma. But yes, this requires wider organization and
| some regulation. This type of organization and regulation
| do exist in many places in the world, and can work
| decently well.
| throwaway271818 wrote:
| Another throwaway because I don't want friends to know, but
| another thing about being poor that people who are not don't
| really understand is how much family can keep you down.
|
| If you are the only person in your family to go to college/make
| lots of $$$, there's this overwhelming feeling to want to help
| your immediate or even extended family as much as you can.
| Sending them a large chunk of your salary eats into your ability
| to save and reinvest that money into more wealth.
|
| It's kinda like having someone in the family who is a drug addict
| and is incapable of keeping a decent job and providing for
| themselves. Except instead of drugs they're just trying to
| survive, and instead of it being a single person you can easily
| dismiss for being an "addict", it's your whole family.
| Havoc wrote:
| TIL US actually turns off your water if you don't pay. More used
| to flow restrictions. i.e. You'll have water to keep you alive
| but good luck showering with 10% the normal pressure.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| This is highly refined (I'm gonna stop just short of calling if
| "pure") FUD.
|
| In practice nobody gets their utilities shut off except people
| who were intending to pay their bill and slip through the
| bureaucratic cracks (elderly with kids managing it is a common
| scenario) or the person paying the bill doesn't live there and
| stopped paying (e.g. landlord in foreclosure so they stopped
| paying). I can't speak for literally every municipality but
| there are defined timelines and it takes months to shut
| utilities off. By the time they get around to shutting off your
| water or electricity you've already missed god knows how many
| payments on your rent and been through the full eviction
| proceedings. I've also never seen a utility provider that won't
| accept minimum payments. Providing some sort of financial
| assistance services, payment plans and doing everything
| possible to not shut people's utilities off is generally a
| requirement of getting a government granted utility monopoly in
| the first place.
|
| Anyone who has to choose between utilities and something else
| should choose the something else. Utilities tend to be
| incredibly forgiving and willing to work with you if your
| financial situation doesn't permit payment in full. In some
| jurisdictions the debt doesn't even get reported (they just
| keep trying to collect)
| objectivetruth wrote:
| I'm willing to use my real account, not a throwaway, to say
| that the original article is correct and YOU are wrong.
|
| For one thing, in a country the size of the US with tens of
| thousands of jurisdiction/utility-provider combos, there's no
| possible way you can authoritatively declare what happens "in
| practice," as you acknowledge in the next sentence.
|
| Here's another: _I_ have had this happen to me, 30 days after
| a missed payment. Multiple times. So has the author,
| apparently.
|
| Just wanted to make sure the HN readership, which skews anti-
| poor and anti-empathy, doesn't use your post as more ammo
| without at least SOME counter.
| sethammons wrote:
| Fwiw, many water providers will continue services if any amount
| is paid in good faith. Also worth noting (at least in
| California): no water to the building means it is legally
| uninhabitable: you can be forced from the property.
| RGamma wrote:
| Seeing this thread I understand why the "U"SA have become so
| fucked. Sorry to all those 90s kids who grew up in the illusion
| of a middle-class society.
|
| Carrot for the well-situated, stick for the rest. The truly
| amazing thing is how this system creates its own proponents
| without any diction or explicit coercion like ideologies of old.
| And by obfuscating its workings with complicated black boxes in
| the form of financial and legal entities it can stay diffuse and
| difficult to pinpoint.
|
| Gratz to those who made it, could have been much easier in the
| rest of the first world though.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| This article should have been titled "On being Poor-ish in
| Phoenix" ... I don't think many of these issues apply to being
| poor in, say, a small town/a smaller city/a city with transit or
| in a country with a better social net.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| There's definitely an American perspective there, where few
| cities have decent transit, let alone good transit. But you're
| not gonna escape the car problems in the states by moving to a
| smaller town. If anything, that usually makes things worse.
| piokoch wrote:
| This is really touching. My impression was that in the US
| government is not going to step out to help the poor, but there
| is a lot of private charity that helps people. Isn't that the
| case? I guess I might have idealized picture of American society,
| but I always though that giving back to the others was consider
| to be some kind of duty?
| telesilla wrote:
| _Sorry we missed you_ does a superb job of showing the cycle of
| poverty and how it affects families. The accuracy of the film
| stems from interviews while director Ken Loach was filming I,
| Daniel Blake in Newcastle.
| robtherobber wrote:
| I can wholeheartedly recommend that film (and Ken Loach's
| filmns in general). The following review excerpt [1] is telling
| and heartbreaking:
|
| _The stakes of the film are simultaneously huge and small. The
| Turners don't need much. Some stability; a steady income, of
| course; more time would be a dream. Really, though, the most
| precious thing they have is each other. But there's no time for
| that because then there'd be no money._
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/movies/sorry-we-missed-
| yo...
| sethammons wrote:
| There were a couple of years where I saw my wife for
| approximately 3 minutes a day. She worked nights and I worked
| days (plus school) and we saw each other as we handed off the
| kid as I walked in the door and she walked out. I was asleep
| when she got home and she was asleep when I left in tue
| morning.
| sethammons wrote:
| > You are also more or less forced to learn to do mechanic work.
|
| You are forced to do all your own work, unless the landlord will
| help. I am no longer poor and broke, but I spent roughly my first
| three decades there. I recall a colleague saying they were
| redoing their walk way; it blew my mind they paid someone to do
| it -- the concept of paying someone to do something for you is
| not something I experienced growing up. I now can afford
| contractors and it still is not my first (or second or third)
| thought when I need work done.
| sanderjd wrote:
| I think that interestingly, once you can afford to have someone
| do something for you, it is often (even usually) cheaper to do
| it that way than to do it yourself. If it is something you
| don't know how to do, then you are paying for the education in
| some way, either in your own time to learn how to do it, or in
| the lower quality that usually comes out of future value
| somehow (either resale value or it-needs-to-be-done-again
| cost). If it's something you already know how to do, then
| you're paying yourself for your own time rather than someone
| else paying you for that time. Of course there are lots of
| trade offs and balances to strike, but as a rule the bigger the
| project is the less I think I can save money by doing it
| myself.
| Terretta wrote:
| The article touches on this with "don't by a spatula from
| Craigslist".
|
| No matter your income, what you're really doing is trading time
| for goods and services, the money is just a token.
|
| When "doing your own work", be mindful of the opportunity cost
| of your time. What's your rate versus the handyman's rate? If
| you fix the porch, are you less able to pick up that overtime
| shift?
|
| This needs to be genuine trade off, not aspirational. For
| example, one lots of folks don't consider: what's the cost of
| your commute time, and if you could live significantly closer
| for a little more rent or mortgage, could you _and would you_
| put that time to a use with payback /upside? In a recent
| datascience article, the author analyzed rents and locations to
| save a few pounds, tolerating a 50 minute commute. What could
| they generate with an extra _40 hours_ of productive time a
| month, and would they do that or watch the telly?
|
| Reframe as: what can you do with your tradeoffs on time that
| adds pay-it-forward energy to your financial flywheel?
| ryandrake wrote:
| The key is whether there is actually opportunity cost. Unless
| I would _otherwise be earning money_ , the monetary value of
| my time is zero. Usually, I'd otherwise be screwing around
| with a hobby, playing video games, or other things that don't
| earn me money. Therefore, I aim to DIY as much as I can.
| Paying someone to fix my car or the drain under my sink seems
| like a ridiculous expense if I can do it myself for free.
|
| If instead I were constantly working on $100/hr
| contracts/gigs, and fixing something would take actual time
| out of that work, then I would be more tempted to pay someone
| $60/hr to do something I could otherwise do myself.
| [deleted]
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| At some point though time doesnt really equal money. For many
| we can find a way to make money with that time. But if you
| are working a low income job that does not allow for overtime
| pay and you don't have skills you can use to generate income
| on the side... money is money and time is time.
| Terretta wrote:
| That's the gist of my second to last paragraph. For this
| time value to be real, _could_ you and _would_ you be able
| to redeploy the time? This scenario was premised on having
| the skills to do your own repair work.
|
| To be clear, I'm acknowledging your position, but hold that
| it is, by and large, a trap to believe that time cannot be
| leveraged. For instance, can you fix someone else's porch
| for more than you'd save by fixing your own? Probably.
|
| What works to low end income advantage here is that if
| you're at the left end of the income bell curve, there are
| many more people to the right of you who can compensate you
| for your time to free up theirs, while those still lower
| than you can be leveraged to free up yours. Not saying it's
| easy to find one's ratchet, but odds are high a ratchet is
| there.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| I very rarely read long Hacker News articles to the end. This one
| is fascinating.
|
| A few years ago I watched a Netflix series about extreme
| cheapskates. (I think it was called "Extreme Cheapskates.") The
| thing that struck me were the older "cheapskates" who realized
| the kind of economics in this article. They retired young and
| follow many of the same habits described in this article, and are
| totally happy.
|
| One guy bikes everywhere and only eats weird cuts of meat and
| fish that no one else wants. Then he scrounges loose change in
| parking lots to pay for his "vacations." Another family only buys
| "expired but good" food and has a creative way to replace toilet
| paper. They got into the habit when they needed to get out of
| debt and just decided that they'd rather put their money
| elsewhere.
|
| The series made me NEVER complain about money again, even while I
| was unemployed during the pandemic.
| mudita wrote:
| I was poor for some time after deciding to quit my computer
| science phd for a career in art. I guess I still am compared to
| others, but it does not feel that way any more. When I was really
| poor, worrying about money and how to pay the next rent was a
| regular source of stress for me, which took quite a lot of
| emotional energy.
|
| Now I still have much lower income than people, who have regular
| well-paying jobs, but I do not feel poor. I have no savings and
| there are some things, which feel totally out of reach like
| owning a car or house, but I do not have to worry about money and
| I can afford a lot of luxuries like visiting theatres very often
| and eating out.
|
| Regarding housing: I remember living in a tiny room in a shared
| flat in the worst part of town, above a brothel, a shady car
| dealer and a Hookah lounge (which was often very loud, very late
| into the night). Sometimes I had problems paying rent, but there
| just was no cheaper less-quality alternative.
|
| Regarding transportation: I am so glad, that I live in a place,
| where you can live very comfortably without a car.
|
| Similarly with health care. I think the US is just an especially
| bad place to be poor in compared to Europe.
|
| Financially switching from computer science to art has been a
| very bad decision, but overall it was the best decision in my
| life. It really helped me deal with my tendencies for
| depressions, because it allows me to feel more meaning in my life
| and suits me better. I do not think that I would have dared this
| switch in the US. I don't know what would have happened if I had
| lived in the states, if I would have found other ways to cope
| with depression or if I would have slipped into deeper and deeper
| depressive episodes without a way out, but I am glad that I did
| not have to find out.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Financially switching from computer science to art has been a
| very bad decision, but overall it was the best decision in my
| life.
|
| This reminded me of a friend who graduated with a BA in
| "design" (I'm not sure), got a high-paying job as a web
| designer, and quit that to become a teacher at some type of
| extracurricular enrichment place for very young children.
|
| The new place didn't pay well -- or even reliably -- but she
| liked it more.
| sql_monkey wrote:
| Thank you for sharing. Your comment highlights something
| important I believe when talking about poverty. One common
| argument against any type of government help is that poor
| people should just work harder and pull themselves by the
| bootstrap.
|
| However the situation you describe above shows the many side-
| effects of being poor which impede life in general: lack of
| proper sleep (because you live in a noisy area with no other
| choice), constant stress (paying rent, maybe dangerous
| neighborhood, etc.), probably not affording good quality food,
| etc. etc.
|
| Add these side-effects up and one quickly understand that
| getting out of poverty is an herculean task and I personally
| couldn't blame someone for not making it.
| 6510 wrote:
| > One common argument against any type of government help is
| that poor people should just work harder and pull themselves
| by the bootstrap.
|
| Even in a fully emotionally detached view a government should
| do what it takes to upgrade citizens to healthy productive
| members of society.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| I'd go further---why do all narratives around poverty have to
| revolve around the middle class? Either someone used to be
| middle class and is now poor, grew up poor and is now middle
| class or at very least is moving towards that end.
|
| Where are the stories about people born into poverty, still
| in poverty, and not likely to be anything but poor for the
| rest of their lives? There are lots of people like this and
| cutting out their stories distorts our perceptions.
| collyw wrote:
| > Where are the stories about people born into poverty,
| still in poverty, and not likely to be anything but poor
| for the rest of their lives?
|
| Thomas Sowell says that it's actually a pretty small
| percentage of people like that. Most poor people are young
| and most rich people are old. Young people become older and
| the vast majority work their way up the pay scale to some
| extent.
| musingsole wrote:
| Seems like the thing to put some numbers on. If that
| perpetually poor narrative is only true for 1% of
| Americans, that's a population bigger than my hometown
| being forever mischaracterized and unrepresented.
| Ignoring the realities of others' lives is how we got
| rising fascism.
|
| I doubt many are comforted in knowing they're a
| statistical minority.
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| I imagine no one cares about those stories for the most
| part, other than Jack London and Anton Chekhov.
| [deleted]
| airhead969 wrote:
| Ever slept in a bus station? I have, in the US. I went for 3
| years without any healthcare, and then it took another 7 years
| and a lawyer (who took $16k USD) to get more permanent help.
|
| One thing is for certain: with 99.99% of people, their
| friendliness (or meanness) is proportional to the size of your
| bank account.
|
| If you want to know how people truly are, become actually poor,
| filthy, and seem depressed, then you will know their nature.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| I have, I've also lived in a car, showered in gyms/public
| bathrooms and it sucks. Especially, if you're trying to keep
| up an image at work and don't want them to know you're
| homeless.
| austincheney wrote:
| > If you want to know how people truly are, become actually
| poor, filthy, and seem depressed, then you will know their
| nature.
|
| You don't need to be homeless to discover that some people
| lack sympathy. I lack sympathy. It doesn't mean I'm an
| asshole. Sympathy isn't empathy (huge distinction). Some
| people can't tell the difference and everyone is just bad
| (cue the big tears).
|
| This is especially true if you're a freeloader. I imagine
| most people are just as honest about freeloaders regardless
| if they are homeless or supremely wealthy. This problem isn't
| mean people, but rather poor self-analysis and playing a
| victim. Most people don't want anything to do with that
| nonsense, which is extremely unsympathetic.
| anon_tor_12345 wrote:
| >This is especially true if you're a freeloader.
|
| says the guy that was a pog for 24 years...
| [deleted]
| ausbah wrote:
| you know "free loaders" aren't why most people are homeless
| right?
| Cullinet wrote:
| in one specific case I will willingly describe where that
| is precisely the reality that needs to be faced. (hardly
| gladly will I recount my experiences, I am barely past
| the stages of pure shock, I became homeless as the result
| of extensive almost decade long criminal harassment
| following when I accidentally uncovered a systematic
| fraud in government. ironically - actually I am pretty
| sure intentionally - the fraud is in housing and crosses
| the institutional walls between central and local
| government and into the world of QUANGOS and charities
| ostensibly helping the homeless but inextricably
| involved.
|
| the systematic enfranchisement of fraud in east London
| public housing authority and agencies intertwined and
| inseparable from hard drug dealing, is maintaining a
| permanent and pernicious status quo where under housing
| in consequence is denied by individuals who are
| officially homeless and who collectively by reason of
| being sufficiently well financially provided for by
| exceptional and exclusive permissive authority, exist en
| masse as a block preventing both the most needy to get
| housed from the street and the eligible and worthy to
| move on into permanent housing that they can sustain.
|
| the situation is naturally more complicated than this,
| but essentially these are the conditions that have such a
| deleterious effect on the public : the mode of cash money
| available for spending to the majority cohort is greater
| than the average free for spending cash income in London
| as a whole ; the percentage of technically "homeless"
| people who are housed ostensibly only temporarily but
| effective permanently on the doorstep of the City's
| financial center who are habitual beggars is greatly in
| excess of 50% and I can attest closer to 90 percent in my
| own experience ; income from begging frequently exceeds
| USD 1000 per week. ; organised crime is permeated
| throughout every corner of the entire environment these
| people - indeed any homeless person - encounters.
|
| I'll simply respond to any questions rather than drown
| you in the details straight away. of course, into this
| vipers' nest fell lil'ol'me who was raised by a Great
| Depression banker and brought up learning accounting from
| my pay dissecting the over valuation applied to the
| pension fund of his newly commercialized thrift which was
| paying their former board manager and one time gm
| responsible for their greatest historic growth, just 82
| British pounds a week supposedly index linked... this
| ain't over quite yet due to the pandemic messing with
| case progression, so you might hear more yet.. I can rout
| out plentiful public sources meantime if you're
| particularly interested although if you are please
| forgive me in advance for being rather circumspect about
| who is who and the whys and wherefores, because this is
| long ago passed into the physical danger territory for
| not merely me but including anyone who has helped..
|
| edited by necessity of brevity, excerpted text in profile
| joshuaissac wrote:
| Your comment is very difficult to read and understand.
| The sentences are too long and borders on purple prose.
| There are too many strands of thought packed into a
| single sentence.
|
| I understand you are saying that you discovered some
| potential government fraud, and that homeless Londoners
| are being recruited by organised criminals, but not how
| the two are related.
| nitrogen wrote:
| It's nowhere near the majority case, but I have
| definitely met freeloader panhandlers when they were off
| duty. One was an older couple who made their grandkids
| put on ratty clothes and hold signs in the city, so they
| could continue living on the road in their very nice RV.
| I met them at a campground when I was a kid, and the
| grandkids accidentally let slip that "the bank" was code
| for panhandling.
|
| The other was clearly a bit mentally unhinged. He pulled
| up in a _very_ nice Mercedes with a bunch of weird
| slogans silkscreened on the back window that would put
| Qanon to shame, but this was in 2004. If I remember right
| he showed us his fine suits in the trunk of the car. Told
| us about his private compound where he lived. Then
| proceeded to dance and sing in the middle of the street
| in his bum clothes.
| austincheney wrote:
| Most of the people I have known that I would label as
| "freeloaders" seem to have some combination of
| developmental emotional abuse and mental health issues
| that are either not diagnosed or not properly medicated.
| They tend to become homeless of their own accord and tend
| to blame people for the relationships they destroy.
|
| At first it comes off as entitlement when they assume
| free access to other people's property, time, and
| resources when those other people are trying to help. But
| after a long enough period of direct social involvement
| it becomes frustratingly clear the behavior is something
| like a passive non-violent anti-social behavior. It can
| be sad to watch. Its worse if they have children.
| BunsanSpace wrote:
| Very location dependant.
|
| In my city the majourity of panhandlers you see have
| homes, and choose not to work and beg on the street. You
| can tell who's homeless because they don't bother you,
| they sit in silence, or in front of a shelter. Or they
| ask for food rather than money.
|
| People harassing you for money? Panhandlers.
|
| I'm sure it's different in cities that have higher costs
| of living s.t. a min wage earner can't afford rent
| anywhere.
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| No offense, but I don't think you personally know a
| single homeless person.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| lmao have you been stalking panhandlers in your city to
| see where they go at the end of the day?
| rdtwo wrote:
| Drugs almost always this
| collyw wrote:
| I know in my home town some of the homeless weren't
| actually homeless, just scammers begging for money at pub
| closing time.
| austincheney wrote:
| I didn't say that.
| cjaybo wrote:
| No, but if there is no relation between the two then I'm
| not sure why the second paragraph is relevant here.
| austincheney wrote:
| Freeloading isn't related to homelessness in many cases
| (perhaps most), but it is very related to what I replied
| to.
| airhead969 wrote:
| You may have missed the point, so I'll state it explicitly:
| almost all people lack empathy, it's just more than some
| have the self-control not to stab homeless people to death.
|
| Sympathy, gratuity, and freeloading are somewhere off in
| the distance.
|
| I hope you're not trying to slip in some duplicitous
| language to accuse me of being freeloader. What does it
| have to do with anything?
| [deleted]
| austincheney wrote:
| > almost all people lack empathy
|
| There isn't any empirical assessment that agrees with
| that. A lack of empathy is narcissism, which only applies
| to a small percentage of any population according to most
| of the research on this subject.
| [deleted]
| gumby wrote:
| > One thing is for certain: with 99.99% of people, their
| friendliness (or meanness) is proportional to the size of
| your bank account.
|
| This is worth repeating. Sadly we're talking 99.99% of _all_
| people world wide, not just in country X.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > If you want to know how people truly are, become actually
| poor, filthy, and seem depressed, then you will know their
| nature.
|
| I guess it's just that so many poor, dirty people act
| mentally unhinged and (potentially) dangerous that you start
| to assume that about all of them.
|
| I find that I try to avoid them right up until they force me
| to interact with them and I find out they're one of the
| (relatively) normal ones. Then I'm perfectly happy to buy
| them a sandwich (or two, if I'm going to buy you breakfast
| might as well have a decent one).
|
| I'm not quite sure why it works this way.
| dazc wrote:
| Please don't overlook the people who are not dirty or
| mentally unhinged.
|
| The guy sat on the same bench you walk past everyday, the
| guy you see sat in the library everyday, etc. Not every
| homeless person acts like a homeless person and you see
| them everywhere once you start looking.
| marcusverus wrote:
| > I'm not quite sure why it works this way.
|
| It works this way because people are, rationally, more
| interested in their own physical safety than they are in
| the feelings of strangers.
|
| Anecdote: I was in San Francisco a few years back. There
| were homeless folks everywhere. Some were nice, even
| chatty. We felt at ease even when walking through areas
| that were full of homeless folks. But a couple of days into
| our trip, a homeless dude accosted a coworker on the
| sidewalk. He shouted violent threats, shoved my coworker,
| and told him not to come back. When I asked my coworker
| what set the guy off, he said that he had absolutely no
| idea.
|
| That experience changed how I interacted with homeless
| folks for the remainder of the trip. I made no eye contact.
| I avoided areas with groups of homeless folks. I did not
| respond when spoken to. Is that fair to the average
| homeless person, who is perfectly normal, just down on
| their luck? To be perfectly honest, I do not care. My
| physical safety comes before your feelings. Full stop.
| Lambdanaut wrote:
| "Rationally"? You mentioned you had all sorts of nice
| experiences with homeless people and then one bad actor
| caused you to choose out of all of the attributes of this
| person, their lack of a home, to be the one for you to
| blanket-label all people like this as dangerous enough to
| place them outside of your treat-like-a-human-being
| sphere.
|
| Nah, there is not a rational way to blanket label groups
| like this from a sample size of 1. That's your trauma
| talking.
| tangjurine wrote:
| ...
| musingsole wrote:
| Yeah, it's the trauma. That's the point. The potential
| cost of a single violent interaction is extremely high.
| There is relatively no reward for being pleasant to the
| 99% who just happen to look an awful lot like the one who
| tried to stab you.
|
| It is the same rationale behind profiling. Which is to
| say, it _is_ rational, just ineffective and with a number
| of bad side effects.
| pb7 wrote:
| All it takes is one to seriously physically hurt you. You
| wouldn't leave your doors unlocked while away just
| because 99% of passerbys won't check whether it is.
| criticaljudge wrote:
| You can't deny that in terms of Bayesian probability, the
| odds are higher for a homeless person to be mentally
| unhinged than for the average person. Simply because
| mental illness is often the cause for homelessness.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > Is that fair to the average homeless person, who is
| perfectly normal, just down on their luck?
|
| This is not an accurate description of the average
| homeless person.
| exolymph wrote:
| The point is, that doesn't matter. It only takes one
| unhinged person to fuck up your day.
| [deleted]
| dazc wrote:
| This resonates with me as someone who has been homeless for
| a, thankfully, short period of time. I was given a chance to
| get back on my feet by someone who was almost as poor as I
| was, he did have a house and a couch I could sleep on though.
| Ten years later I have no money worries, and because we
| remain good friends, neither does he.
| fallingknife wrote:
| I'm surprised he doesn't know not to pay rent for the last month
| and make them use the deposit for it. That's what I always did
| when I was poor. No way they're gonna evict you in 30 days,
| especially if they know you're leaving anyway.
|
| Also his car cost is way off: https://cars.usnews.com/cars-
| trucks/cheapest-lease-deals
| choeger wrote:
| That came to my mind as well. If I don't expect the deposit
| back and cannot afford to claim it, let's just turn the tables
| and make _them_ claim something from _me_.
| gambiting wrote:
| Here in the UK that would destroy any chances of renting
| anything decent in the future. Any agency/landlord will
| always ask for references from your current landlord, if you
| dick them over like this you can forget ever renting
| something that isn't a slum where people don't care about
| references.
|
| Also deposits are always(by law) held by a third party in
| escrow, and it's actually a bit of a pain to claim any money
| from that as a landlord, so it's really rare that people lose
| their deposits unless the place is absolutely wrecked.
| Hard_Space wrote:
| In reality (in the UK), those references precede your
| current landlord getting to check your apartment's
| condition out. By the time the landlord has ascertained the
| state of the property, the reference has usually been
| given.
| bluGill wrote:
| In the US you can sue for anything. Smart landlords only
| confirm that someone lived there, and other easily
| verifiable information, since if they sometimes give a good
| reference and sometimes neutral that means neutral
| references are bad and they can be sued for that. If you
| get a anything more as reference from a landlord it is
| because you were bad enough that the landlord sued and won
| (it is safe to assume this never happens, though there are
| exceptions)
|
| Don't confuse suing with winning. You can sue someone and
| lose, but the lawyers will still cost both sides a lot of
| money.
| treis wrote:
| >Any agency/landlord will always ask for references from
| your current landlord
|
| Give them your buddies contact information.
| buescher wrote:
| He chose a car manufacturer that no longer makes compact sedans
| for his example, which is flat-out deceptive.
|
| Someone who can write that well can probably find ways to make
| more money if he needs it - what else is he trying to deceive
| us about?
| cableshaft wrote:
| You can't even get a lease with bad credit. And with poor
| credit you're not getting these "$200/month" offers for leases.
| Those assume pretty good credit scores, which you almost
| certainly won't have if you're poor enough you have to let
| utilities get shut off.
| watertom wrote:
| Maybe in the old days not paying your last month's rent would
| be an option but not today.
|
| Nobody who is truly poor would skip out on the last month rent
| unless they were desperate, because the landlord will find
| things wrong with the apartment and will charge you the most or
| all of the security deposit. Then they will file an unpaid dept
| claim, turn it over to a debt collection agency and it will hit
| your credit score. Which means in the future you have to rent
| in the really scary parts of the city, and if you don't want to
| rent in the really scary part of the city you'll pay your last
| month's rent. Also a lot of jobs check credit scores, a bad
| report could keep the author from getting hired.
|
| In regard to the car, the author doesn't have the credit score
| or income level to even qualify for the lease let alone, "the
| cheapest lease deals", not to mention the author certainly
| doesn't have the $3K down payment. If you are thinking that
| they can just roll the down payment into the lease, well they
| only let you do that if you have the best credit score.
| waaaaaaat wrote:
| upstanding citizen who briefly rented from a slumlord (NYC)
| here. When it became obvious my landlord wasn't gonna give me
| my deposit back I just didn't pay the last month's rent.
| never heard another word about it. I left the place spotless,
| as I would've regardless of anything related to the deposit.
| protomyth wrote:
| You end up with some things that stick with you even if they make
| no sense anymore and are a lot more suspicious of people's
| motives because you've seen how parts of society get away with
| some crap.
|
| I still won't eat fish willingly. In the USA, Check where police
| checkpoints are setup on the morning of the 1st in your area.
| Notice what is on-sale and what the displays are in the grocery
| stores on the 1st. Check the EBT signs in your local gas station.
| Just some examples of the odd things most people don't notice.
| RickJWagner wrote:
| Craigslist, bah.
|
| Facebook marketplace is where it's at.
|
| A really enjoyable article, though. Thanks to the author.
| burlesona wrote:
| This is a great write-up, and as someone who spent time being
| poor-ish, it really resonated.
|
| What I realized from my own life experience: the US sawed the
| bottom rungs off the ladder in the 1950s when it suburbanized.
| There is no affordable housing or transportation in 95% of the
| North American land area, and virtually every societal problem we
| deal with either stems from this or is made worse by it. Then the
| healthcare disaster is the cherry on top.
|
| The US is a great place to live and work with tremendous upward
| mobility ---- but only if you can stay above the event horizon
| which is reliable car ownership and insurance coverage (health,
| home/renters, auto). If you fall under that, you will need help
| or a lot of good luck to get back out.
| deeeeplearning wrote:
| >The US is a great place to live and work with tremendous
| upward mobility
|
| Always confused by this notion. People act as if the US is the
| only place this is possible but not only is it possible in most
| of the western world, there is in fact BETTER mobility in the
| much of the western world relative to the US. The US isn't even
| in the Top 10!
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/countries-where-intergenerat...
| deeeeplearning wrote:
| Pretty confused by the downvotes. People don't like data?
|
| I mean in fact it's worse than people think and you are no
| longer likely to make more than your parents when a few
| decades ago you had a 90% chance of doing so.
|
| https://www.nber.org/papers/w22910
|
| Never expected such a ra-ra USA #1 vibe on HN. Especially in
| the face of data that says otherwise.
| oblio wrote:
| I guess most people just don't know the numbers and go by gut
| feeling, mass media and what they learned in
| (primary/secondary) school many years ago.
| jawzz wrote:
| You're blatantly misquoting the person you're replying to.
| deeeeplearning wrote:
| In what way. You would call being 18th in income mobility
| "tremendous?" I wouldn't.
| treis wrote:
| >There is no affordable housing or transportation in 95% of the
| North American land area
|
| This just isn't true. The majority of the US has cheap housing.
| The person who wrote the article lives in Pheonix where you can
| get houses for 200k or under. Like this perfectly good 3 bed 2
| br for 200k:
|
| https://www.redfin.com/AZ/Phoenix/8520-W-Palm-Ln-85037/unit-...
|
| Housing costs are out of control in a handful of places in the
| US. In the rest of them it's as cheap as ever. Or even cheaper
| given the very low interest rates.
|
| It can be stupid cheap to live in the US. Rent a room for
| $4-500, buy a late model Toyota for $5k, and eat like a poor
| person. It's pretty easy to accumulate enough money to break
| the cycle of poverty.
|
| The big pitfall is health. If you're sick then yeah you're
| pretty screwed. But outside of that as long as you avoid
| unplanned kids, jail, and drugs it's pretty smooth sailing
| Barracoon wrote:
| The author of the submitted article spent multiple paragraphs
| describing how it is not pretty easy to accumulate enough
| money to break the cycle of poverty, so if you want to maybe
| write a long form explaining how to effectively and
| realistically do so for people in this situation, that'd be
| great.
| treis wrote:
| The author spent multiple paragraphs giving excuses why
| it's hard. The way out doesn't take that long to explain.
| Say we have someone netting 2k a month or 24k a year:
|
| For a month:
|
| Room - $500 Food - $200 Health Insurance - $0 w/ Obamacare
| subsidies Other Necessities - $200 Entertainment - $100
|
| So we have $1,000 left over and have to deal with
| transportation. Our target is something like this 2009
| Toyota Matrix with 100k miles for $3,900:
|
| https://phoenix.craigslist.org/wvl/cto/d/peoria-2009-toyota
| -...
|
| If we have $3,900 in the bank great. If not, life is going
| to suck for the next ~6 months while we save every penny
| and rely on the bus until we have the cash to afford it.
| Once we have it then we will have reliable transportation
| and can budget about $500 a month for car expenses
| including replacing this one when it breaks down. Leaving
| us:
|
| Room - $500 Food - $200 Health Insurance - $0 w/ Obamacare
| subsidies Other Necessities - $200 Entertainment - $100
| Car- $500
|
| For a total of $1,500. $500 left over to accumulate some
| savings and/or pay for stuff we missed.
|
| Next goal would be to use one of the many down payment
| assistance programs
| (https://www.arizonadownpaymentassistance.com/down-payment-
| pr...) to buy a home like the one I linked to. Then we rent
| out a room or two for ~$500 reducing our housing expenses
| while building equity.
|
| As long as we don't get sick, don't have a kid, and don't
| start doing drugs we're going to be sitting pretty nice
| after a few years.
| mattlondon wrote:
| 500 for car expenses _a month_? Seems crazy to put away
| 6k a year to maintain a car that is under 4k. If you need
| to spend 500 a month to keep the car on the road you need
| to get a different car.
|
| A good used Toyota or Mazda or Honda will run for YEARS
| and huge mileages with only basic maintenance - like one
| oil change and new windscreen wipers every year levels of
| maintenance. Nothing breaks. These sorts of used civics
| or corollas etc that are maybe 5 -8 years old can be had
| for PS3-6k or less (in UK at least). I've owned several
| over the past decade or two and they never have anything
| major wrong with them in terms of mechanical breakdowns.
| I have only got rid of them when I have "upgraded".
|
| Running costs are negligible beyond the cost of fuel.
| Insurance is usually low as they are cheap to repair with
| plentiful parts etc. I pay about PS300/year for my 2011
| Toyota a(nd that was a year after a claim to replacing
| the catalytic converter that someone stole). Beyond that
| I estimate about another PS250 a year for basic
| servicing, MOT (UK annual roadworthiness checks) and
| replacing consumables like bulbs or the odd tyre.
| keyboardCowBoy wrote:
| I signed up just to respond to you because I live in Phoenix
| and there is no affordable housing here in a desirable
| neighborhood. There are no single family homes under 200K in
| Phoenix. A decent started sized home will cost you almost
| 300K and good luck finding one. That example you gave is a
| home that is in an area you wouldn't want to send your kids
| to the schools, walk around at night, and crime has been
| rampant in Maryvale since the 1990s and has been getting
| worse. There is a reason its priced like that. On a side note
| the home's yard is very small and is near Desert SkyMall
| which has had multiple shooting and deaths over the last few
| years. Just google desert sky mall shootings.
| skohan wrote:
| I sometimes wonder if that event horizon is encroaching higher
| and higher up the economic ladder over time. Most of the people
| in my personal cohort - with university degrees and good
| careers - have no problem living a good life in the US. But
| with the rapid inflation of the cost of healthcare, higher
| education and housing, I wonder how that lifestyle can possibly
| become accessible to people who weren't essentially born into
| it. I think increased stratification in terms of lifestyle and
| opportunity is not good long term for social cohesion or
| political stability.
| blaser-waffle wrote:
| That event horizon is shifting: "K-shaped recovery" -- you're
| either moving on up or moving on down.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| Politicians all of a sudden care a lot when problems start to
| hit the second quintile.
| ReptileMan wrote:
| It is called cost disease. Staying above is getting harder
| and harder.
| nerdponx wrote:
| This is very much the trend I saw over the 2000s-2010s.
|
| _Most of the people in my personal cohort - with university
| degrees and good careers - have no problem living a good life
| in the US. But with the rapid inflation of the cost of
| healthcare, higher education and housing, I wonder how that
| lifestyle can possibly become accessible to people who weren
| 't essentially born into it._
|
| I know many people who _were_ born into a middle-class or
| upper-middle-class lifestyle, pursued career paths that didn
| 't involve the tech industry (because they were specifically
| encouraged to "do whatever you want"), and are now living
| below their parents' standards of living and will probably
| always be poorer than their parents.
|
| They aren't bum artists either; they work in offices 8-6, and
| have 5+ years of experience and sophisticated professional
| skills. But they are being paid 2011 wages in a 2021 housing
| market, and it all strikes me as tremendously unfair.
|
| Median house prices in the USA are now _above_ their pre-
| crash peak, and have been increasing much much faster than
| the CPI[0]. Something fucky is going on, and I doubt it 's
| all because of the "free" market.
|
| [0]: chart https://files.catbox.moe/kvppyj.png and data
| https://files.catbox.moe/tqj9vb.csv
| bradleyjg wrote:
| > Something fucky is going on, and I doubt it's all because
| of the "free" market.
|
| At first the suburban house as bottomless bank account was
| a result of "natural" forces like the baby boom and white
| flight. But people came to assume it, and then demand it.
| Politicians have obliged since homeowners are an extremely
| large and powerful demographic. Prior to 2008 we at least
| pretended to have a private mortgage industry. Now we don't
| even bother with a fig leaf.
| ryandrake wrote:
| After the 2008 crash, it became politically impossible to
| let house prices drop, so the government will basically
| do anything to prop them up. Too many elderly voters who
| depend on their home equity to fund their lifestyles. I
| think we'll look back at 2020 as the moment the same
| political pressure happened to stock market prices.
| [deleted]
| whimsicalism wrote:
| 21st century is: we're turning everything into a market,
| far fewer easy but well-paid jobs, if older people had to
| actually face the brunt of it they would lose their
| homes.
|
| People who can't handle technology don't have a chance
| nowadays.
| sct202 wrote:
| In my peer group people are focusing on the monthly
| payments, rather than the loan amount. And mortgage rates
| are like half what they were in the last housing bubble
| https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MORTGAGE30US
| nerdponx wrote:
| My peer group is probably a bit younger, and they/I are
| all renting or are relatively new homeowners. The
| "sticker price" on houses matters to my group a lot, as
| does monthly rent.
|
| I'd love to find a FRED-like data source for median
| _rental_ rates over time and /or an index thereof. I
| suspect that rents are generally correlated with sale
| prices on a multi-year time scale.
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| Leaving them with no room to refinance in future, since
| rates practically cannot drop further for mortgage
| lending to be viable.
|
| People taking loans in 2021 sure better hope for the
| continued devaluation of the dollar. It's the only way to
| keep the debt burden manageable.
| SomewhatLikely wrote:
| Serious question: why would they care about refinancing
| if their rate is low? Regarding dollar devaluation: I
| don't there there has been a single year since we
| abandoned the gold standard where the dollar didn't
| devalue. And the Fed has explicitly okayed higher
| inflation going forward.
| hardwaregeek wrote:
| Definitely. At least in my generation it feels like the boat
| is sinking and everybody's scrambling to be above deck. The
| majority of my high school class is going into tech or tech-
| adjacent industries for that reason.
| cwp wrote:
| I noticed this after spending time in developing countries.
| They are set up much better for being poor. Trivial example:
| you can go into a pharmacy and buy two aspirin. Some people
| can't afford 100 at a time, and don't need that many anyway.
|
| Or rent: you can get a place to live for only $60/month.
| There's no running water, but it's clean and dry and it has a
| lock on the door. The cheapest place you can find in the US is
| a lot nicer, but also much more expensive.
|
| Buses have no route maps, no shelters and no doors. They might
| not come to a complete stop when they pick you up. But you can
| ride for 25C/.
|
| The US has a kind of minimum standard of living, but it comes
| with a minimum cost of living. If you can't afford that, you
| end up with nothing.
| nine_zeros wrote:
| A lot of cities in developing countries are built around
| cities/villages of the past. Today, they are redeveloping
| those, so they have infrastructural problems of the kind
| where they struggle to rip something out and redesign (unless
| you are China).
|
| America got a clean slate in 1700s. And completely fucked it
| up over the years with massive suburbanization. America could
| have been Europe++ or Japan++ but instead we are a economic
| meat grinder with soulless suburbia being the pinnacle of a
| dream life.
| swiley wrote:
| This is what's ridiculous about much of the zoning and
| building codes here. People don't want poor people living in
| sub-optimal housing, so instead they force them to sleep
| outside or live with abusive people.
| carapace wrote:
| Technical fix: aircrete dome homes. E.g.:
| https://www.domegaia.com/
|
| Beautiful, cheap, easy, fast, durable (fire- and
| earthquake-proof, "It will not rot, rust or decompose in
| water.", etc.) and regular folk can make them with
| "backyard-scale" foamers and construction technique.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| All sorts of things are like this.
|
| The older I get the more I realize that you can't regulate
| the things wealthy societies do into existence. If everyone
| can't afford building code things collapse when you mandate
| that. If the economy is underpinned by bad working
| conditions or child labor things collapse when you regulate
| them. If people can't afford to eat at restaurants that
| follow some new code then they simply won't and those
| restaurants will fold. If you restrict the supply of some
| trade through licensing in the name of quality then you
| just get amateurs doing the lower dollar work for cash. A
| society has to be able to afford to do the things it
| mandates. People have to get wealthy enough to reliably
| afford "right" before you can legislate away "wrong".
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > People don't want poor people living in sub-optimal
| housing, so instead they force them to sleep outside or
| live with abusive people.
|
| People don't want poor people to live near them. That is
| the root of most of the zoning issues, it's not because
| they are actually worried about the quality of the housing
| stock that the people would live in.
| sorisos wrote:
| I've seen some research on "relative income happiness"
| that suggest having poor(er) people nearby should
| increase happiness. Perhaps it doesn't apply if the
| income cap is to large...
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Or perhaps people aren't actually rational utility
| maximizing machines and might not properly anticipate the
| utility benefits from the change.
| bsanr2 wrote:
| The liberal approach is to subsidize to maintain that base
| level, because of an awareness that the social outcomes
| tend to pay dividends in higher social unity, better
| health, etc.
|
| Some people would rather pay for private security than for
| policy that makes muggings less likely, I suppose.
| JamesBarney wrote:
| Is this what California, San Francisco, or New York do?
| ajkjk wrote:
| Not really, yet.
| vmception wrote:
| _< State>, <City within the same state> <city within the
| same state with the same name as the state || state with
| the same name as the city within the same state>_
|
| .... yesn't???
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > People don't want poor people living in sub-optimal
| housing, so instead they force them to sleep outside or
| live with abusive people.
|
| No, mostly people don't want poor people _or_ sub-optimal
| housing in their neighborhoods, for a variety of financial,
| perceived safety, and emotional comfort related reasons.
|
| If it was just not wanting poor people to live in
| suboptimal housing, there'd be a lot greater effort to
| provide non-sub-optimal housing to poor people. There are
| definitely people with this concern, but it's not the
| driver of housing and zoning policy.
| bagacrap wrote:
| Not a great example. In the US, you can buy small quantities
| of drugs (or soap or whatever) in the travel section of a
| CVS, or in a dollar store. Usually this is held up as an
| example of the difficulty of being poor though (not a boon to
| the poor), since the unit price is, of course, higher.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| I had no money and no resources as a child. I lived in a family
| of 8. We went clothes shopping once a year. Being one of the
| youngest, I just got hand-me-downs mostly. The first time I got a
| new sweater I was 14.
|
| We had 3 books in the house growing up, all gifts from our 'city
| cousins' at Christmas. We had no TV until Dad brought one home
| from the TV repair shop - a 10-inch black and white deal. It
| smoked and dripped plastic on the floor first time we turned it
| on. Dad took it back and they gave us another one, which actually
| worked sort of. We did not live on a bus route, have any parks to
| play in, or any public library.
|
| Were we poor? I suppose we might think so today. But all our
| neighbors were in about the same situation. We were happy, and
| didn't consider ourselves deprived in any way.
|
| What made us content? We lived on a farm. There was always meat
| in the freezer and food on the table. We had the entire outdoors
| to play in including an ancient barn, a shop with tools and a
| workbench. Chickens and pigs and calves and cats and kittens.
| Tree swings and trees I could climb so high, I could see clear to
| the horizon. Creeks with frogs and fish and tadpoles.
|
| I see folks living in cement boxes in crowded towns, kids who's
| entire life is the sidewalk and the mall. Parents working so hard
| you never see them. People next door so isolated you can't really
| call them neighbors.
|
| When I grew up and went to college (full student loans, qualified
| for everything they had) and got a job in town and got married, I
| told my wife we had to raise the kids outside of town. Out of all
| that cement and worry. And we did.
|
| We gave them a shop and motorized vehicles to maintain (mower,
| tractor, carts, bikes). Gardens to tend and cats to feed.
| Neighbors to visit and chores to do.
|
| It was different from my growing up. They had hundreds of books
| and an unlimited budget for new ones. They had good schools and
| involved parents. But it also had the advantages I had. They
| could run heedless through the wide boundaries we set. They could
| spend a summer day on projects or books or Scouts or building
| something. Or just wander the creek and collect tadpoles.
|
| I worry most of us are confused about what's important, and spend
| so much time pursuing somebody else's goals we forget to have any
| of our own.
| EliRivers wrote:
| The car. As he says, the car. The goddamned car.
|
| Every time you get into it, hoping that it will start. And not
| just when it's been sat outside your house for a while. When you
| stop for petrol (gas), or in the car park after buying food,
| sitting behind the wheel and hoping it starts again. The
| restrictions that get placed on you when you just can't rely on
| the car always starting.
|
| For your life, a mostly-starts car is in theory better than no
| car, but for mental health it's corrosive. Every plan you make
| carries the rider "unless the car doesn't start" and you end up
| restricting where you drive to places that, if you were suddenly
| carless, you could still get home from. Any time you're outside
| the safety zone, there is the constant fear "what if it doesn't
| start?" Being afraid, having that stress, all the time is just
| mentally corrosive.
|
| If a better job comes up and it's not near public transport,
| every day is a gamble on being able to get to work, and get home
| again. Spending your evening worrying about whether you'll be
| able to get to work in the morning is a horrible way to live;
| perpetually unable to relax. At least once I simply sold it for
| scrap and gave up entirely on doing anything that needed a car.
| Such a relief, but I was in the privileged position of being able
| to live and work without one.
| dfgdghdf wrote:
| For the wealthy, a car is expensive but mostly a convenient way
| to get around. For the poor, car maintenance costs can be
| ruinous. However, our society (excluding a few large cities)
| all but _requires_ a car for day-to-day activities. Everyone
| drivers, but the poor bear the brunt of the cost, since they
| are more likely to live near noisy, polluted roads. Meanwhile,
| the wealthy can afford to live on quiet suburbs and cul-de-
| sacs. Cities and infrastructure designed for cars ( "car
| dependency") disproportionately hurts the poor.
| g8oz wrote:
| >>Cities and infrastructure designed for cars ("car
| dependency") disproportionately hurts the poor.
|
| A cynical view would be that this was always the intent.
| lastofthemojito wrote:
| I'm really curious to see how electric cars work for the poor
| (maybe 25 years from now, not presently).
|
| One of the big selling points of electric cars is simplicity -
| with far fewer moving parts, less can go wrong and you can
| hopefully expect a car to last longer.
|
| That's the hope anyways, but the big maintenance item in an
| electric car is the battery, and of course that's an expensive
| thing to replace. Will folks be able to do DIY repairs like
| cobble together battery packs from various sources? Will a
| decades-old battery that is 50% depleted or more still allow
| that car to function properly, just with less range? Or will it
| refuse to "start"?
| lkbm wrote:
| As much as I think the solution is "get rid of cars" (or get
| rid of personal vehicle ownership), I do think reliable cars
| would make a huge difference for people struggling
| financially. Not having to worry about the most important
| tool in your life -- the thing that allows you to get to
| work, to the store, and to appointments -- would be a massive
| stress-reduction for so many people, and stabilize their
| finances. No more "I can't make it to work, so I lost my job"
| and no more unexpected $2000 repairs?
|
| Honestly, more reliable transportation might do more to
| reduce poverty even more than food stamps. (Also, allows you
| to make your food stamp appointments.)
| blackbrokkoli wrote:
| Maybe in 25 years.
|
| As is, electrical car means new car and new car means an
| inane amount of software components that break all the time.
| Just pick any specific model, say, the Tesla S: You can find
| people being confused how to turn it off, the car not
| starting due to software updates, the car being hacked, the
| being bricked by broken software or lacking connectivity,
| erroneous warnings, the car only driving backwards due to low
| battery.
|
| The simplest car is something like a 1998 Corolla and given
| the current trends in automotive, that will stay that way for
| a _long_ time.
| aembleton wrote:
| The downside is needing somewhere to charge them. The poor
| don't tend to live in houses that you can easily plug an EV
| into.
|
| They'll have to go somewhere else to charge up, that will
| charge a premium.
| ed_balls wrote:
| Looking at the current trend, it's highly unlikely e.g.
| single casting, structural battery packs. Car companies are
| for profit, so they have every incentive not to make it
| repairable. What is more, they are some good arguments to be
| made against DIY when you have autopilot in the car.
|
| Self-driving cars may help tough, probably 15+ years after
| it's legal.
| marktangotango wrote:
| Dude this is so true, in the US reliable transportation is so
| important. Particularly given the abysmal, non existent public
| transportation in the majority of the country. Having an
| unreliable car is a major source of stress for a lot of people.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| This ties into covid too. Low paid jobs are more
| likely...scratch that. Low paid jobs _always_ require physical
| presence, most often at strange hours not served by public
| transportation. There are no work-from-home days for
| tradespeople, for cleaners, for food workers.
| issamehh wrote:
| This has been my problem for years now. I'm in the middle of
| nowhere and I can't count on the thing. I don't know how many
| times I've been stuck and also almost towed because I couldn't
| move it. I've luckily managed to avoid it so far but I'd not be
| able to do much about it if it happened.
| Phillips126 wrote:
| I once was interviewing at a company for a graphic designer
| position. My previous job was paying me just below $30,000
| and I desperately needed to increase my income to keep up
| with my bills (college loans, rent, food, electric, etc.). My
| vehicle (1987 Chevy Blazer) was not very reliable (in ~2010)
| and wouldn't you know it - I broke down immediately after
| parking in a lot directly in front of a sign that said "2
| Hour Parking, Vehicle Will Be Towed At Owners Expense".
|
| I'll never forget the embarrassment I felt after a pretty
| underwhelming interview explaining that my car was broken
| down outside in their lot and asked they notify their
| security so that I was not hit with more expensive fees. I've
| had some pretty significant financial hardships - some much
| worse than this, but this moment in particular really had a
| lasting effect on me.
| zaphar wrote:
| That moment when you come out of the grocery store and the car
| doesn't start on the first try...
|
| I'm not in that situation anymore but I can still remember the
| absolute sinking feeling. And then the overwhelming sense of
| relief when it started on the second try. I've had my water
| turned off. I've had my heat turned off. I've scavenged wooden
| pallets on the side of the road to burn in a wood stove for
| heat. I've broken the seal on the gas meter so I could turn it
| on at my most desparate. I escaped those circumstances thanks
| to family, and church friends. But this article is spot on as
| to what it's like to poor or poor-ish.
| rvn1045 wrote:
| Low income people in the U.S still have a chance of improving
| their station in life, although it is very hard. It's nearly
| impossible in other countries where poor takes on a whole new
| meaning.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| We just need to make sure we don't get "used to it" in the USA,
| lest we become a place where class becomes ossified in daily
| life, or descend into the aristocracy class hierarchy that
| plagued much of early European history.
| rob74 wrote:
| And what boggles the mind even more than this sorry state of
| affairs in the USA is that a significant part of these "working
| poor" are voting for a party that angrily rejects any notion of a
| European-style welfare system that would help improve this
| situation as "socialism"...
| refurb wrote:
| Agreed. Not only are they poor but apparently quite stupid! I
| mean, who vote against a European-style welfare system? Who
| doesn't want to be just like Europe?
| nixarian wrote:
| One part of this article is HIGHLY inaccurate: "This isn't evil
| on anyone's part"
| nixarian wrote:
| "This isn't evil on anyone's part" Highly inaccurate
| dakial1 wrote:
| I never was poorish, but thanks to the boyscouts (when I was
| young) and an NGO I helped that worked with housing in Brazilians
| slums, I had great in depth exposure to what a poorer life was.
| And the very first thing to notice is that even if those people
| live in very modest conditions they still managed to be happy and
| that is because they had no reference of what a richer life was.
| Usually their wealth targets were very close to what they had,
| they were always poor/modest so their reality was that. The
| greater problem is when people live the wealthier life and makes
| the the movement to a poorer situation, something that seems to
| be happening in the US (I don't live there, so I don't have first
| hand experience). So people who had a taste of a better, more
| comfortable life, are suffering because of that. That is the
| reason I live well under what my wealth can pay, it is still
| considered a mid-upper class but I'm avoiding at all costs the
| "quality of life trap". If were we (my family) are is
| comfortable, then all the extra money I get will go to savings)
| investments to allow us to keep this life as long as possible,
| not on luxury items or a bigger house/car/TV. Speaking to
| americans, I get that this is not a mindset that they have.
| Ccecil wrote:
| I have tried to explain this very thing to many people I have
| encountered in the past decade. The easiest way I can explain it
| is "Broke doesn't mean you can't buy a boat this year...it means
| you can't afford a coffee this week"
| foolinaround wrote:
| I was reading a post from etsy folks on 'blameless portmortem'
| and thats something places I worked in never did, but it would
| helped so much!
|
| Reading this post, I could'nt help but think what if a person who
| was on hard times (quite often there is some role to be played by
| him, but also actors around him ) - if social orgs could come
| around, analyze the situation, encourage him to make better
| choices, or work around some obstacles, etc, it would make such a
| difference...
|
| A new re-think of what our social services would be -- a mix of
| help, with a dose of fresh opportunities as well.
|
| Currently, the alternatives seem to be between black and white..
| throwaway284239 wrote:
| Boy, does the stuff about cars hit home. When I was poor I had to
| drive on tires so old that the steel was exposed.
|
| The worst was when my insurance got canceled because I couldn't
| afford it. This led to a chain reaction of absolute dumpster-fire
| awfulness:
|
| - Can't afford insurance
|
| - Insurance gets canceled
|
| - This automatically triggers registration getting canceled
|
| - I can't stop going to work, and there's no public transit where
| I lived, so what choice do I have but to keep driving?
|
| - Highway patrol scans my plate, notices I'm not registered,
| pulls me over
|
| - Car gets impounded for not being insured, which is actually the
| more lenient punishment, because (as I learned that day) not
| having insurance is a _criminal offense_
|
| - Can't afford the ticket I got for not being registered, so my
| license gets suspended for non-payment
|
| So because I couldn't make an insurance payment, my registration
| got canceled ($), my car got impounded ($$$), and my license got
| suspended ($). And is any of this money going to fund public
| transportation? Of course not.
|
| I did eventually get my car back, got new insurance, re-
| registered, and reinstated my license, at great personal expense
| including the time it took to go to the DMV (the nearest one of
| which is in the next town).
|
| But it was another year before I could afford to replace my
| tires.
| vmception wrote:
| > because (as I learned that day) not having insurance is a
| criminal offense
|
| > Can't afford the ticket I got for not being registered
|
| so here is where you got lucky, not having prior outstanding
| non-payment or not having prior potentially or actual criminal
| offenses on your record.
|
| non-payment of the ticket would have led to harsher punishment
| upon your next infraction, which is much more likely to happen
| when your neighbors and the police are looking specifically at
| you all the time, which may have been your experience but just
| food for thought for anyone browsing this thread.
| throwaway284239 wrote:
| I know you didn't mean it this way but I would not describe
| any part of this experience as "lucky."
|
| But you're right. The patrolman came right out and said that
| he was knocking down the no-insurance charge to an
| unregistered citation because I didn't have a criminal
| record. What he didn't know is that I do have a criminal
| record, just not in that state. Guess his systems don't
| connect to the federal ones.
|
| So yeah. "Lucky" is right.
|
| What galls me about this is that if you look at any of the
| individual steps in isolation, it sounds perfectly logical,
| or at least there's an argument to be had. And that's the
| level at which we argue about these things when it comes to
| passing laws.
|
| But when you look at the whole thing end-to-end, it is
| _crystal-clear_ that there is a sum greater than its parts,
| and that sum functions to drive people who are in poverty
| even further into poverty. In this particular case there 's
| the additional unintended consequence of prioritizing the
| flow of money over actual vehicle safety.
| vmception wrote:
| yes, it takes an outside perspective to identity the luck
| involved because people in every socioeconomic class and
| background all have their own challenges that they faced
| whether they will receive empathy for it or not
|
| for your post I was mainly aiming to point out to others
| how a cycle effects a large portion of American society,
| disproportionately affecting minorities relative to their
| population. The prior unpaid ticket and prior leniency
| leads to the harsher penalty for the next infraction, which
| is all more likely to happen when there is an assumption of
| suspicion and over-policing. This practically ensures that
| violent infractions become the only choices available to
| people and harms our collective society. Despite there no
| longer being racially exclusionary laws, and despite there
| (typically) being no individual person consciously trying
| to disenfranchisement someone, it is still easy to quantify
| how a result becomes so common.
| fergie wrote:
| See also the follow-up article:
| https://residentcontrarian.substack.com/p/being-poor-ish-rev...
| dnautics wrote:
| I've had the experiences of:
|
| 1. being on the high end of poor while being oblivious and in a
| socially highbrow environment (STEM grad school, $26k/yr salary,
| high cost-of-living city). I also felt privileged because i lived
| in a "foreign postdoc ghetto" where my neighbors were a single
| family on a postdoc salary (probably somewhere between 27-30k)
| living in a one-bedroom with two kids.
|
| 2. the experience of being "service-collar" middle-class while
| having peers that have mostly emerged from being poor (Lyft
| driver, $56k/yr earnings)
|
| Now I'm a dev, on the lower end of the pay scale for bay area
| devs but one thing is I'm pretty fearless about winding up poor
| again because I know I can hack it and still live happily. Now
| I'm a dev, probably on the lower end of the spectrum for the bay
| area
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Believe me some places like New Orleans would love to have a
| foreign postdoc ghetto if it meant educated people would stick
| around.
| jmdeon wrote:
| I just watched episode 4 of Atlanta last night and Donald
| Glover's character had a really good monologue about being poor
| after finding out his friend had helped him turn 190$ into 2000$
| but that it wouldn't be available right away:
|
| Earn Marks: Poor people don't have time for investments, because
| poor people are too busy trying not to be poor. Okay? I need to
| eat today, not in September.
|
| Full scene is worth a watch:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hOCjX_SSXY&ab_channel=ThaiM...
| TrackerFF wrote:
| I think the biggest threat to poor people, would be the
| ridiculous housing market. It's not just in big expensive cities,
| it's pretty much everywhere. Only places that are being spared,
| are those in destitute areas with some serious emigration
| problems - but those things happen for a reason (no work).
|
| In my country (Norway), the housing market has appreciated around
| 5.5% ANNUALLY, compared to annual wage increase of some 2.5%. In
| some cities, that growth is much higher - almost 8%
|
| We have a very decent welfare system, but a spread like that will
| surely create a hard class-divide between owners and renters.
| Renters will be forced further away from the cities, having to
| rely on longer commutes.
|
| Some places it's already that bad. Certain normal salaried
| professions can not, and will probably never, be able to own even
| "starter" homes (as in small apartments), because they need to
| spend more and more time on saving for the down-payment (15%
| here) - and once they've reached their original goal, the
| goalpost have been moved. I'm talking about professions like
| teachers, nurses, etc. Not even legit poor people!
|
| Having been raised by a poor-ish single mother, I can remember
| that at least in the 80s/90s, there was a lot less debt around.
| At least here, credit cards and consumer debt wasn't being handed
| out like free candy, back then. You had to rely on your salary,
| and then either get help from family/friends, or the welfare
| office. My mother had too much pride for that, even though my
| dads side were loaded.
|
| These days, it seems like poor people are also getting trapped in
| debt. Everything is driven by debt, and every bill you fall
| behind on, is compounded by some fee, which is applied the second
| you're overdue.
|
| I can absolutely understand why many poor people feel complete
| helplessness and apathy.
| ThrustVectoring wrote:
| > Having been raised by a poor-ish single mother, I can
| remember that at least in the 80s/90s, there was a lot less
| debt around. At least here, credit cards and consumer debt
| wasn't being handed out like free candy, back then. You had to
| rely on your salary, and then either get help from
| family/friends, or the welfare office. My mother had too much
| pride for that, even though my dads side were loaded.
|
| > These days, it seems like poor people are also getting
| trapped in debt. Everything is driven by debt, and every bill
| you fall behind on, is compounded by some fee, which is applied
| the second you're overdue.
|
| This all is a side-effect of the one-two punch of aging
| demographics and switching from pay-as-you-go to defined-
| contribution retirement schemes. Every debt is someone else's
| asset, so if the market is demanding more assets, interest
| rates will fall until asset values rise, debt loads increase,
| and the market clears.
|
| The situation is just cursed, IMHO. If you want to ease
| conditions, you have to reduce the payments various debtors and
| tenants make to asset-holders, which is ultimately infeasible
| on the grounds of impoverishing retirees and ruining pension
| funds. If you use government spending on this, you either raise
| taxes or foist off the problem to public borrowing and/or
| inflation. At the end of the day, the real goods and services
| that the working public produces but does not consume is the
| same size as the real goods and services that the non-working
| public consumes but does not produce; at best you can
| redistribute spending within these demographics.
| huevosabio wrote:
| You can't have an eternally appreciating housing market and
| affordable housing [0], one has to give. Our current housing
| market appreciation comes from systematic housing shortage.
|
| Rognlie finds out that the increase in return to capital (vs
| return to labor) observed by Piketty comes largely from the
| residential real estate sector [1].
|
| It turns out, Henry George was right. We need to tax the value
| of land such that we capture all of the economic rent that
| rightfully belongs to the community and distribute it to the
| community as a dividend. The same tax will spur a more
| efficient use of land and, thus, more housing supply. The
| dividend will serve as a cash-based safety net for the
| community members.
|
| Additionally, at some point we have to make the switch that
| Japan did in how we view housing: as a depreciating asset.
|
| [0] Note that the only sustainable way to have affordable
| housing is if market-rate housing is affordable. Publicly
| owned/built/subsidized housing is useful for handling
| exceptions, but not for your main point of supply.
|
| [1] https://www.brookings.edu/bpea-articles/deciphering-the-
| fall...
| supersour wrote:
| I've been thinking about this as well, and I think the crux
| of the problem is that housing is a prime investment. I'd
| imagine for most older Americans, real estate makes up a
| significant amount of their nest egg. In my circle, it seems
| like there is much more talk about housing investment than
| stocks or something similar.
|
| If this is true, then it implies that the corrective paths
| are all things which will negatively impact the investments
| of anyone with a mortgage. I wonder what percent of the
| voting body they make up? I think this is part of why we
| aren't seeing change. It seems like somebody has to lose out.
|
| I think these are the main solutions. As you see they are all
| legislation dependent:
|
| 1. As you mention, larger tax on housing, especially on those
| which are used as rental properties.
|
| 2. Saturate housing markets with government housing, which
| don't need to be priced at subsidized rates but only at a
| rate such that no rent seeking behaviour would be practiced
| in a 40-50 year window. A 0% IRR investment from the
| government would not cost taxpayers nearly as much as
| subsidized housing.
|
| 3. Relax building code standards and zoning regulations to
| drastically increase the supply of low cost real-estate
| opportunities.
|
| 4. Related to 3, relax laws relating to mobile homes/RVs/tiny
| homes and allow people to live in them if they have a place
| to keep them. I know in many places this is illegal, even in
| very rural areas [1].
|
| [1] https://globalnews.ca/news/7501035/bc-couple-salmo-land-
| evic...
| pmiller2 wrote:
| There is no "systematic housing shortage." There are 59
| vacant housing units for every homeless person in the US. [0]
| Even California has more than 9 empty housing units per
| homeless person. [ _ibid_ ]
|
| ---
|
| [0]: https://www.self.inc/info/empty-homes/
| woah wrote:
| This is known as "vacancy trutherism", and it has about as
| much truth to it as q-anon. The vacancy rate is in the low
| single digits, and the less vacancy there is, the less
| affordable the market is. The vast majority of vacancies
| are units that are in the process of being rented or sold.
|
| The idea that there is some Illuminati cabal of housing
| speculators holding vast numbers of units off the market is
| a crazy fantasy pushed by those who don't want to face the
| reality that our society has not built enough housing.
|
| The article you link shows how laughable this concept is.
| It contains a table of states ordered by their vacancy to
| homeless ratio. One would expect that the states with the
| worst housing crises would appear at the top of the list.
| But California appears at the very bottom of the list,
| since it has the lowest number of vacancies per homeless
| people. This would imply that California is doing the best
| out of all the states on housing!
| tmnvix wrote:
| Reported vacancy rates (the ones you'll hear quoted in
| the media) are usually discovered by asking real estate
| agencies how many of the properties on their books are
| currently available to rent. It doesn't include houses
| otherwise unavailable for rent such as holiday homes or
| those being 'land banked'.
|
| For some data on Low Use Properties (LUP's) and
| speculative vacancies in the UK and Australia
| respectively, see [1] and [2].
|
| Also worth checking out official government statistics
| for NZ where the difference between the number of
| households and the number of residences is about 7.5%
| nationally. That compares with almost half that rate 25
| years ago. This change has occurred amidst a property
| boom purportedly driven by a shortage of properties
| (really it is a speculative boom driven by a shortage of
| investment opportunities in the form of residential
| property).
|
| [1] https://theodi.org/event/friday-lunchtime-lecture-
| empty-home...
|
| [2] https://www.prosper.org.au/wp-
| content/uploads/2019/04/Specul...
|
| The solution to this in my opinion is to remove the
| privileged tax status of property investors and introduce
| a wealth tax in the form of a Land Value Tax. Political
| suicide unfortunately.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Citations very much needed. A 59:1 ratio of available
| units to those in need of housing, which has been
| increasing over the years, _prima facie_ shows there is
| no housing shortage. Moreover, with that high of a ratio,
| everyone looking for housing could have it, with plenty
| left over for those who have none.
|
| I've offered facts. You offer nothing concrete. Which of
| our comments is more like the drivel Q-Anon spreads?
|
| Edit: I should add that yes, homelessness has been on a
| general decline for some time, but not enough to account
| for the increased ratio of available units to homeless
| people. See
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/555795/estimated-
| number-...
| pmiller2 wrote:
| You are absolutely right.
|
| I live in the Bay Area now, which everyone knows has absurd
| rental prices. In my home town, I can rent a comparable sized
| apartment to what I have now for around 1/3 what I currently
| pay. But, there's no way I could earn 1/3 the income I make as
| a Bay Area software engineer working at a non-remote job in my
| home town.
|
| Even making 1/4 what I'm making would be highly optimistic. I
| just did a search on Google for "$HOMETOWN $HOME_STATE jobs,"
| and pretty much everything I could qualify for was retail level
| jobs. In my home town, that means probably $10/hour, or,
| $20k/year, if you can manage to get full time hours. Even in
| retail management, it would be tough to hit 1/5 of what I make
| now. Add in student loans, which are a fixed expense, no matter
| where I go, unless I want to go to a repayment plan that
| depends on my income and never pay them off, and we see the
| advantage goes squarely to the Bay Area.
|
| Now, imagine starting in my home town and actually making it to
| the Bay Area. If you move with a job already lined up, you'll
| need to have at least 1 month's rent + 1 month security deposit
| saved up, plus moving expenses. First month's rent and security
| deposit will be at least $3500. Think about how long it takes
| to save up $3500 making $20k per year. Then, think about how
| this doesn't include moving expenses, which, even if everything
| you own fits in your personal vehicle, is going to amount to
| another several hundred for gas and probably at least one night
| in a hotel if you drive. Call it another $500.
|
| Oh, and I forgot to mention, at $20k per year in my home town,
| you're probably either spending 35-40% of your gross income on
| rent, or living with roommates. So, good luck saving up nearly
| 1/4 of your gross annual income just to GTFO.
| criticaljudge wrote:
| Isn't that exactly what banks are for - so that you can get a
| loan? I would expect that you would qualify for a loan if you
| show evidence of your upcoming employment.
|
| Many companies also pay for moves.
|
| Of course if you do all that, and then your employment is
| suddenly canceled, you are stuck with some debt. I guess that
| happens to some people.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| A loan against what collateral? What does someone making
| $20k per year have to put up as security for a loan? You're
| also assuming this person has little to no debt to begin
| with, so their debt to income ratio can sustain another
| loan. Banks don't lend money out of the kindness of their
| own hearts; you have to qualify, and that's much easier
| with a higher income than a below median income.
| sbarre wrote:
| > I think the biggest threat to poor people, would be the
| ridiculous housing market.
|
| I have heard this referred to as the "financialization of
| housing" in articles I've read over the last few years. Google
| that term to find out more..
|
| Basically more and more multinational corporations (structured
| as REITs and similar) have turned their eyes towards the
| housing market, buying up stock in major cities and wherever
| there is arbitrage opportunity...
|
| And of course this means maximizing profits and minimizing
| costs, which is squeezing the average person harder and harder
| as rents go up more aggressively than before (which also drives
| up home prices etc)...
|
| The idea of treating people's homes as "assets" to be bought
| and sold and optimized for profit is, personally speaking,
| horrendous..
|
| But hey, capitalism, right?
| criticaljudge wrote:
| You can't arbitrarily set rent prices. You can only ask what
| people are also willing to pay.
|
| People are willing to pay because they have high paying jobs
| and want to live near to where they work. And that is
| ultimately also a good thing.
|
| Think about a brain surgeon, who under socialism would have
| to commute for two hours to his jobs, and under evil
| capitalism can live 20 minutes from the hospital. Under
| capitalism he will get to the job well rested and therefore
| have a higher success rate for his operations.
| zaccusl wrote:
| Not that I disagree with the notion that "you can't
| arbitrarily set rent prices", but this is an incredibly
| simplistic example and does nothing to address literal rent
| seeking.
|
| If the pandemic has shown us anything, it is that grocery
| store workers, meat packers, and the supply chain workers
| that get food (and toilet paper) to our tables are far more
| important to society than most high paid white collar and
| knowledge jobs. Does anybody care how well rested the brain
| surgeon is when you can't even buy produce or rice or meat
| at the grocery store? Do these employees not have a right
| to live 20 minutes from their place of employment?
|
| There are ways to address these issues without devolving to
| some simplistic "capitalism or socialism" (with no in-
| between) argument.
| ImaCake wrote:
| >while it's normal to put down a month or two worth of rent as a
| security deposit, it's much less normal to get it back
|
| This looks insane to an Australian. I have moved house 4 times in
| the past 5 years and I have never not got all of my bond back.
| Some states here have a rule that the bond money is held by the
| state so that the landowner doesn't just take that money for
| themselves. How can the poor ever break the cycle if no one is
| willing to help protect them from shitty rent-seekers?
| blackshaw wrote:
| Yeah, a bunch of things in this article strike me as very
| American (I'm British). No-one in the UK worries about not
| being able to afford healthcare if they're poor, nor do they
| need a car to get to the grocery store in under an hour (unless
| they live in an isolated home out in the countryside, which
| probably means they're rich, not poor.) There are many, many
| places you can live in the UK without needing a car to get to
| work.
|
| The deposit thing looks insane to me too. My rental deposit is
| held in escrow by some third party; I've never heard of anyone
| not getting their deposit back when they move (unless they did
| something to deserve it e.g. trashing the place). The only
| issue around deposits is that you usually have to pay a deposit
| for the new place before you've received the deposit back for
| the old place, which can cause cashflow issues.
|
| I've always thought of the U.S. as a great place to be rich,
| but a terrible place to be poor.
|
| On the other hand, I find it laughable that this author
| describes a 900sqft apartment as "very small". 900sqft would be
| considered a decent-sized, mid-range apartment in London, and
| if you're poor you'll live somewhere MUCH smaller. Americans
| have such ginormous houses, even the poor ones.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| In central London just 600sqft can easily cost you a million
| pounds... The place I rented when I lived there was a bit
| smaller and was for sale at 950k asking price.
| cmdkeen wrote:
| Rural poverty is a real thing, and often overlooked by
| politics / media / society. Rural villages no longer tend to
| have a shop or post office, the bus services can be erratic
| and infrequent, it's a real problem.
|
| The student rental market 12 or so years ago was definitely
| full of horror stories about getting deposits returned,
| knowing which letting agents to go with useful insider
| knowledge. The Scottish deposit security scheme is only a few
| years old and has definitely helped improve the situation.
| The rental market is one in which there can be significant
| power/information imbalances and where some protections make
| absolute sense.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Student and tourism rentals are worse than the regular
| rental market because 9x/10 the people getting screwed out
| of their deposit can afford it so there's less latent "it
| might actually be worth someone's time to sue you" to keep
| the landlords in check.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| The US is a large and very diverse place, and very frequently
| you will find that there are very clear laws about what a
| landlord is and isn't allowed to charge for, as well as what
| proof they need to take a deposit. For example, Seattle has
| its own set of rules which are quite clear and don't allow
| contracts that would override them, in other places there are
| no rules, and what is in the contract is what you must abide
| by.
|
| The problem, that the author alluded to, is that there is no
| one that will solve or mediate a dispute short of taking a
| claim to court in the US. This is generally pretty cheap and
| easy for small claims, if you know what you are doing. Most
| people don't know what they are doing, or have no idea that
| small claims is even an option.
|
| As an American who now lives in a place with socialized
| healthcare, I can safely say that I'm not moving back until
| the US sorts out the healthcare crisis. I'm in Canada now,
| which is used as a punching bag by conservative Americans for
| how bad socialized healthcare can be. Anyone who has lived in
| both places knows how laughable that claim is. Canadians
| certainly have their complaints about this system, but I have
| never heard a Canadian ask for US style healthcare.
| blackshaw wrote:
| > I have never heard a Canadian ask for US style
| healthcare.
|
| I've never heard anyone of any nationality say they wish
| their country had US-style healthcare.
| mrsuprawsm wrote:
| >My rental deposit is held in escrow by some third party;
| I've never heard of anyone not getting their deposit back
| when they move (unless they did something to deserve it e.g.
| trashing the place).
|
| This is only a relatively recent thing in the UK, introduced
| about 10 years ago, to tackle the problem described in the
| original post of landlords running off with tenants deposits.
|
| When I was a student ~10 years ago, just before compulsory
| deposit protection was introduced, it was very common for
| landlords to invent or wildly exaggerate damages to keep the
| PS1000+ deposit, especially because they thought that
| students would be a push-over.
| antognini wrote:
| On paper many states in the US actually have pretty strong
| protections for tenants for their security deposits. It's
| not uncommon for states to have fairly strict standards as
| to the valid reasons a landlord can take money out of a
| security deposit. If a landlord withholds money for
| frivolous reasons the tenant can be entitled to double or
| treble damages. (So if they withhold $1000 for no reason,
| you can get back that $1000 and an additional $2000 or
| $3000.)
|
| The main issue is enforcement. If your landlord withholds
| the deposit, often your only recourse is to sue them
| (usually in small claims court). This is going to require
| paying some court fees, maybe on the order of $100 (which
| you may get back if you win, but you still need to pay them
| up front). Plus you're going to have to show up in court,
| which likely means missing work. And obviously you're not
| going to have a lawyer for this, whereas most landlords
| will.
|
| When I moved out of my last apartment my landlord withheld
| $100 because he claimed there was dust on the blinds.
| (There was not, we specifically dusted the blinds before
| moving out.) But the only way I could get that money back
| was to sue them, and it just wasn't worth it for me.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>On the other hand, I find it laughable that this author
| describes a 900sqft apartment as "very small". 900sqft would
| be considered a decent-sized, mid-range apartment in London,
|
| Yep, we actually bought a 3-bed house(not apartment) in UK,
| and the total space is 950sqft(about 90square metres). And
| that's not a small house around here by any measure. American
| houses are like their cars - absurdly large.
| a2tech wrote:
| American here that grew up in a 3 bedroom house with around
| 900sqft of space and 4 people, and now live in a 2500sqft
| house with just my wife and 1 dog..I don't know how we did
| it. Thinking back it was so insanely cramped, my parents
| bedroom was the 'big' bedroom and it was just large enough
| to fit a queen sized bed, a chest of drawers, a gun case,
| and then a night stand on one side of the bed. The kids
| bedrooms barely fit a twin sized bed and a small desk with
| room to stand. Tiny bathroom, living room just big enough
| for 4-5 people. Very tiny kitchen, not large enough for a
| dishwasher.
| gambiting wrote:
| I mean, it isn't some weird flex with me going yeah it's
| cramped BUT WE LOVE IT THIS WAY. Like, yeah, this house
| would be too small for 4 people. But right now, with just
| me, wife, and a baby on the way - no problem.
|
| >>my parents bedroom was the 'big' bedroom and it was
| just large enough to fit a queen sized bed, a chest of
| drawers, a gun case, and then a night stand on one side
| of the bed
|
| That's exactly what ours is, minus the gun case ;-)
| [deleted]
| robotmay wrote:
| I once looked at a flat/apartment in a converted house
| here in the UK where the oven door got stuck on the wall
| opposite when you tried to open it.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Sounds like a feature if you don't want people sticking
| their head in.
| nikon wrote:
| >>The deposit thing looks insane to me too. My rental deposit
| is held in escrow by some third party; I've never heard of
| anyone not getting their deposit back when they move (unless
| they did something to deserve it e.g. trashing the place).
| The only issue around deposits is that you usually have to
| pay a deposit for the new place before you've received the
| deposit back for the old place, which can cause cashflow
| issues.
|
| Anecdotal but myself (multiple moves) and most friends in
| London had to battle for a few hundred quid being attempted
| to stolen from the deposit before returning for various BS
| reasons. The dispute scheme was great as a tenant, but did
| mean months without the funds back.
| kayodelycaon wrote:
| The last place I rented from took my deposit for damage they
| knew existed before I started renting. (They literally painted
| over mold in the kitchen closet.) Then they tried to send me a
| $1000+ bill over a year later for "damages".
| toomanybeersies wrote:
| Although bond is held by the RTBA (or whatever it's called
| outside Vic), it's pretty common for landlords/property
| managers to try and strong arm tenants into giving up part of
| their bond for "damages", most of which are either resonable
| wear and tear, pre-existing, or not the responsibility of the
| tenant. For poorer people, who need the money sooner than
| later, it's often easier to agree to get half your bond back
| than to apply to VCAT (not to mention a lot of tenants fear
| they'll get blacklisted if they do) and possibly get all your
| bond back several months later.
|
| I'm currently in the process of trying to claw my bond back
| from my previous landlord, it's been over 3 months now. Luckily
| I can afford it, but I know a lot of people who can't.
| elhudy wrote:
| This varies on a state-by-state basis. In Chicago, rental
| protections allow for the rentee to sue for beyond the deposit,
| as well as their lawyer's wages, in the case of a security
| deposit being wrongly taken. I know because I won back a lot of
| money from bogus 'damage' claims. Other states have laws that
| lean towards favoring the renter.
|
| Since we're throwing anecdotes out there, I've had my landlords
| attempt to wrongly and knowingly take money from my security
| deposit about 30% of the time. The lower-class the apartment
| is, the more likely the owner is a slumlord, and will try to
| scam you.
| trynumber9 wrote:
| I'm American and my experience matches yours. I've always got
| my deposit back. However, if there is a country that embodies
| "your mileage may vary" it is the USA.
| boston_clone wrote:
| that is not just due to us sticking with the imperial system,
| either.
| Havoc wrote:
| Yeah some. Landlord pocketing the interest on it can happen,
| and if they're nasty they might argue re you can't get it all
| back cause of a scratch on the floor over there but just
| straight up refusal is insane
| a_bonobo wrote:
| >I have never not got all of my bond back.
|
| Then you're lucky - I've had enough friends in QLD and WA who
| have had their bond partially kept back because the landlord
| company thought they could get a few hundred or thousand for
| free. Usually the trick is to say that pre-existing damage was
| caused by my friends. It's impossible to defend from if you
| don't claim the damage when you move in!
|
| I've personally only had one huge battle with the company as
| they thought our place was dirty when we moved out, despite
| spending two full days cleaning it (townhouse). I now always
| pay a cleaning company to avoid the hassle, but that's $100-200
| not everyone can afford.
|
| I found these 2018 numbers that say that 30% of bonds are not
| returned in Australia; https://www.finder.com.au/30-of-aussie-
| tenants-dont-get-thei...
| toomanybeersies wrote:
| I always take photos when I start a tenancy. More often than
| not, the property manager/landlord tries that I caused pre-
| existing damage and the photos always help.
| gambiting wrote:
| Same in UK. I have moved 8 times in the past 11 years and I
| always got my full deposit back.
|
| Also yes, the entire article just screams "the experience of
| being poor....in America". From the lack of social net, to the
| absurd costs of insurance and healthcare. I don't mean to say
| that life elsewhere is all rosy and there are no problems at
| all, but I can't even imagine worrying about costs of health
| treatments - it's just a given you will get them and you won't
| pay anything. I guess it's part of the author's point - that
| some people don't realize how good they have it.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I don't know the statistics, but I live in the US, and had
| rented for 10+ years with 5 of 6 different landlords in 3
| cities, and I always got my deposit back, and I don't know
| anyone who was stiffed either. But I wasn't staying in the
| worst places, but not the best either. One was an informal cash
| transaction rental from a Craigslist ad and it worked out.
| notsureaboutpg wrote:
| Through 3 landlords I only got a security deposit back once.
| Both times it was claimed they needed the money to repaint
| the apartment (I didn't damage the walls or even put anything
| up on them).
| irjustin wrote:
| Stay in a slum and you'll find those who are more than happy
| to break the rules if they know they can.
|
| You probably have the mental fortitude to figure out how to
| fight back on your own. To read the docs, know your position,
| agreements, and how to take a landlord to court to win.
|
| In low income, people don't know their rights nor do they
| ever believe that the system could ever be on their side.
| And, they're not unjustified in that thinking.
| paxys wrote:
| A lot depends on state and local laws. In San Francisco, for
| example, I get interest on the security deposit my landlord
| is holding credited to my rent every year. They cannot charge
| for reasonable wear and tear. So even though the deposit is
| large, I expect ~100% of it back when I leave. If not, there
| is a strong tenants union that will support my case.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I always got my security deposit back when I rented. No drama,
| they just checked the apartment and gave it back.
| acdha wrote:
| In the US, there are sharp race and class disparities here:
| if you're white and pass for at least lower middle class, you
| are much less likely to have an issue because even unethical
| landlords know the police and courts will listen to
| complaints. Go outside of those communities and complaints
| become more common, often with accounts of a rental company
| caving immediately after someone demonstrated knowledge of
| their legal rights and lack of fear to contact the justice
| system.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > caving immediately after someone demonstrated knowledge
| of their legal rights and lack of fear to contact the
| justice system.
|
| Sounds like the solution. When I was younger, people would
| try to take advantage of me, but all it takes is a bit of
| standing up for yourself and they concede.
| acdha wrote:
| Yes, but note that your standing to do so varies
| considerably -- I've never had problems doing that as a
| white man but I know people who declined to involve the
| city / law enforcement because they had had past bad
| experiences due to being black, gay, etc. If the landlord
| threatens to call the cops and you know a history of
| people like you having been mistreated or simply blown
| off, you might give up and accept it as another example
| of the world being unfair to add to many others.
| WalterBright wrote:
| If you believe that nobody has tried to cheat me, steal
| from me, take advantage of my ignorance and inexperience,
| steamroll me, threaten me, con me, etc., you're very
| mistaken.
| throwaway-0987 wrote:
| Throwaway because I don't want my co-workers to know.
|
| I was poor. My father left home when I was a kid in middle
| school. My mom worked part time cleaning houses and left us when
| she found a new husband. I dropped out of high-school in the 9th
| grade and went to work. Low paying jobs. I lived with my aunt on
| the bad side of town.
|
| Fast-forward 35 years. Today, I make about 200K per year. I got a
| GED, went to trade school, then got into college (full Pell Grant
| because I was so poor) and came out with a few degrees.
|
| Everything I own is fully paid for. House, cars, etc. because I'm
| always afraid I'm going to be poor again. Of course, I only own
| modest things. Nothing fancy.
|
| If you have never been poor, you may not realize how awesome
| Small houses and Toyota Corollas are.
|
| My fears about being poor again drive my wife and kids crazy.
| They think I'm nuts and say I need counseling. I probably do.
|
| Anyway, people think I'm 'privileged' now because I earn a lot of
| money, but they have no idea that I used to sleep on the floor
| and eat in soup lines.
|
| I made it and you can too. Poverty has no color. It impacts
| everyone. You can't tell just by looking at someone.
| you_know_the_ wrote:
| I don't think we ever can overcome the fear of being poor
| again. I struggle with it as well.
| walkedaway wrote:
| Your general story of poor-to-doing-well is the majority story
| in the US (not sure of other countries). Income mobility is a
| huge thing in the US, a great feature that I see mentioned very
| little outside of academics. Something like 80% of people will
| be in the top 10% of earners at some point in their lifetime,
| and 98% of people will be in the top 50%. "poor" and "rich" are
| not static labels, and they vary greatly even year to year
| (Thomas Sowell has excellent data and analysis on this).
|
| FWIW I grew up poor and I do the same as you - no debt, pay
| cash for cars (even expensive ones) and despite millions in the
| bank, I fear not being able to provide for the family. At my
| age, I've learned that this is a good thing, as opposed to
| people my age that have spent lavishly and are now wondering
| how to start saving for their retirement in 10 years.
| sanp wrote:
| Can u provide sources for your income mobility claim? The
| numbers here do not seem to line up with what you are quoting
|
| https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamath.
| ..
| Flex247A wrote:
| If you don't mind, can you share your story here?
| CraigJPerry wrote:
| That claim doesn't even pass the sniff test. The idea that
| 80% of people - which must include those born into multi
| generational deprived families just by numbers alone -
| suddenly find themselves for a period of time on the other
| side of the glass ceiling of poverty, it's outrageous.
|
| I'd love to be corrected on this.
| StrictDabbler wrote:
| Walkedaway is exaggerating a claim made by the conservative
| American Enterprise Institute:
|
| https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/some-amazing-findings-on-
| inco...
|
| This is how they counter all the talk about the 1%. They
| suggest that 56% of people will be in the top 10% for one
| year or more. In their entire working lives.
|
| Distortions include:
|
| -income is not wealth
|
| -some kinds of income are very uneven year-over-year
|
| -jumping into the top bracket for only one year doesn't
| indicate income or class mobility
|
| -most of the top 1% of income do in fact stay in the top 1%
| of income
|
| People who earn a lot in one year but don't become wealthy
| may include:
|
| -actors who get one TV commercial
|
| -waiters at high-end restaurants who burn out
|
| -realtors who get a few good sales in a row
|
| -victims of disabling accidents receiving large insurance
| payouts
|
| -oil and other trade workers in Alaska
|
| -minor lottery winners
|
| -people cashing in a retirement fund to deal with emergency
| spending
|
| The fact that America is a land of random windfalls doesn't
| help with social mobility. A family with multi-generational
| poverty gets a windfall and immediately has to spend it
| just trying to catch up a bit.
| andyv wrote:
| -Selling a business built over decades
| TimPC wrote:
| You left out one of the biggest causes of this. For many
| people in that 56%, the year they end up in the top 10%
| is the year their last surviving parent passes away.
| Inheritance is a big one-time windfall for many people.
|
| The other misleading thing is it looks at 44 years of
| longitudinal data, and doesn't make corrections for
| differences between the early years and later years.
| Income has become more polar in the last 40 years, so the
| current numbers are a fair bit worse than the average
| numbers of the last 4.4 decades.
| bzbarsky wrote:
| Inheritances are not taxable (for the recipient), but IRS
| data shows similar patterns.
|
| What it really comes down to is that the upper tail of
| the "reliable income" distributions is thin enough that a
| large fraction of the people who end up in various "top
| N%" buckets are there due to various windfalls, lumpiness
| of income (e.g. a writer getting an advance that they
| live on for a few years while writing the book), etc,
| etc.
|
| Which is, by the way, why the way we do progressive
| taxation is a bit weird. Progressive taxation with tax
| brackets based on lifetime earnings, as opposed to
| current-year income, would make a lot more sense in some
| ways...
| dalbasal wrote:
| Dynamics, like income mobility dynamics are a complicated
| thing. We tend to think in stories, and that is useful, but
| it makes it easy to reach overly general conclusions.
|
| The old republics (US & France, mostly) tend to overlook
| class... to some extent intentionally. My country (ireland)
| has the opposite problem: too much class consciousness. To
| much telling of class-sentric stories.
|
| But, class dynamics do exist in the US & France too.
|
| Class mobility exists too, but it's nowhere near as mobile as
| income mobility. Class is stickier by definition. You can
| just as easily colour in a class stickiness story with
| statistics. The likelihood at birth of someone graduating
| high school, going to prison, being poor, rich etc. It is
| true that where you start is a pretty good predictor,
| statistically, of where you will end up.
|
| It's important to keep both perspectives in mind,
| simultaneously. There are real opportunities to escape
| poverty. The ovarian lottery is also very important, so are
| other "lotteries." It's also a mistake to see yourself as a
| statistic.
| technofiend wrote:
| Go read The Millionaire Next Door. You'll see that there are
| plenty of people like yourself who remain frugal after managing
| to pull themselves out of poverty. I'm suggesting the book to
| both validate your behavior but also give you some examples so
| you can perhaps moderate it if you still feel that's needed. I
| can give a single example from my life: my uncle managed to
| snag a liquor distributorship after WW II. It was a license to
| print money. He never moved out of the first postwar house he
| purchased when he started his business because he just didn't
| see the need and he felt showing off his newfound wealth in
| poor taste.
|
| In short, you're not alone and as long as you're not making
| yourself or people in your life miserable well maybe you're not
| too far off from where you need to be.
|
| https://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Stanley-Thomas/...
|
| I will say the folks who come from richer backgrounds do have
| some advantages over us who grew up poor. For instance I had no
| idea how much scholarships subsidized learning and went to the
| state school I could afford to fund on my own.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| I really didn't like that book, for me it missed the point
| entirely. For the entire length it discusses how you
| accumulate more wealth by not spending it, but it never
| discussed why you would be accumulating all that wealth.
|
| People want to be millionaires, not to stare at 7 digits on a
| webpage, but for the lifestyle it affords. This book just
| assumes the end goal is the number on a bank account.
| 35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote:
| > People want to be millionaires, not to stare at 7 digits
| on a webpage, but for the lifestyle it affords
|
| Some do. Others do not.
|
| My boss makes ~300k a year base. He drives a ten year old
| Golf, carries zero debt, and plans his (very infrequent)
| meals out around "which restaurant is running a 'kids eat
| free' special today?"
|
| His goal is to build up a sizeable savings, retire and live
| off interest, and provide generational wealth for each of
| his children.
|
| One of his peers makes ~300k a year base and enjoys driving
| a Ferrari that costs more than my house. Different strokes
| for different folks :)
| technofiend wrote:
| >For the entire length it discusses how you accumulate more
| wealth by not spending it, but it never discussed why you
| would be accumulating all that wealth.
|
| To be fair, I believe that motivation comes from the
| reader, not the author.
|
| >People want to be millionaires, not to stare at 7 digits
| on a webpage, but for the lifestyle it affords.
|
| Again to be fair I believe you're projecting: _you_ may
| want to be a millionaire for the lifestyle it affords,
| whatever that means to you. The book is a recipe on ways to
| retain wealth and anecdotes on how people accumulated their
| own. It 's not a self-help guide to motivate people to
| become millionaires. I think it's assumed if they're
| reading they book they're already motivated and need to
| know how, not why.
| adkadskhj wrote:
| The number is a goal, for me. Since the moment the goal is
| hit, is the moment i can live safely. If you save $X, you
| can retire. You have the rest of your life planned for, and
| that feeling is worth a lot.
|
| I don't plan on retiring, but i'd feel so, so good if i hit
| $X tomorrow.
|
| The economy could still go down, but as long as society
| doesn't collapse retirement-amounts can bring massive QOL,
| even if you don't live like you're rich.
| pwg wrote:
| > but it never discussed why you would be accumulating all
| that wealth.
|
| One reason is that if one accumulates that wealth, and puts
| that wealth to work itself making money (i.e., investing
| it) then one obtains an income stream that is separate and
| apart from the number of hours per day one can spend
| "working".
|
| Accumulate enough money that is itself making money, and
| one can live comfortably without having to spend
| 40+hrs/week "working" for one's income.
| 52-6F-62 wrote:
| I can appreciate the sentiment of books like that, however
| reality isn't that ...fair.
|
| For any one "millionaire next door" who made it by being
| frugal, many more starve no matter how frugally they live.
| Many will rise and fall, many more will never even rise above
| poverty.
|
| I'd like to see the statistics on lifetime well-being between
| frugality and financial risk-taking+. I'll bet the disparity
| is shallower than we'd like to believe.
|
| These discussions always interest me, but I'm disappointed by
| the amount of puritan dogma that usually gets treated as some
| kind of natural truth. If being poor taught me anything, it's
| that there is no dogma you can lean on.
|
| + _Caveat: the risks being made with a goal to "level-up"
| (read: escape poverty), rather than blind self-indulgence. Ex
| --do you max out your credit card (/whatever available
| leverage) to acquire the tool you need to perform a job in
| the manner of quality you know can be accomplished with said
| tool, or do you buy the tool you can "afford" and gradually,
| over time, work your way up to the "right tool" in this case.
| In the past, more of the latter may have been possible. These
| days, I think you're at an even more immense disadvantage by
| taking that path. Admittedly, my outlook might be too
| coloured by my own experience. Had I not taken the chances
| (sometimes enormously painful), I would probably still be
| trying to squirrel-away $5 bills at a time while working 11
| hour warehouse shifts._
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| It's a good book, but the core point is more about how our
| perception of rich versus poor is detached from the reality
| of one's actual wealth. It's not uncommon for families with
| multi-generational wealth to also live frugal lifestyles.
| It's also not unheard of for those who grew up poor to
| overspend their wealth at the first signs of success, because
| they've never known how to manage money at that scale.
|
| It's important to not turn this into a rich versus poor
| debate, because it can give people on either side of that
| divide the false impression that they're naturally better at
| managing money due to their background. The truth is that
| wealth management is a learned skill that often comes
| separately from one's career or upbringing. And the point of
| the book is that looking wealthy and being wealthy aren't as
| tightly coupled as we believe.
| geebee wrote:
| This is a good point. I thought along similar lines when I
| read:
|
| "If you have never been poor, you may not realize how
| awesome Small houses and Toyota Corollas are."
|
| Very fair and great point, so I hope it's clear my next
| statement is not intended to refute this at all!
|
| However, you could also say that if become or remain
| wealthy, you never forget how awesome Toyota corollas are.
| technofiend wrote:
| >It's also not unheard of for those who grew up poor to
| overspend their wealth at the first signs of success,
| because they've never known how to manage money at that
| scale.
|
| That was really my point: it's _ok_ to not go buy a condo
| in Aspen the second you can afford it. The original poster
| was saying he knows he 's being overly frugal. OK, fine. My
| counter-example of TMND was don't feel you need to move to
| a flashy conspicuous consumption lifestyle either.
| sologoub wrote:
| > I will say the folks who come from richer backgrounds do
| have some advantages over us who grew up poor. For instance I
| had no idea how much scholarships subsidized learning and
| went to the state school I could afford to fund on my own.
|
| This a million times. I ended up in a small private
| university (which was awesome and I still love it) that
| initially gave me a lot of scholarship money, but didn't even
| try to get into top tier. While good at educating, the
| network and the name recognition were not there at all. Can't
| remember how this came up, but at one point I compared notes
| with someone who attended top 10 university and their
| grades/scores were slightly worse than mine - live and learn
| :)
| zusemo wrote:
| Joining the throwaway train here...
|
| > _My fears about being poor again drive my wife and kids
| crazy. They think I 'm nuts and say I need counseling. I
| probably do._
|
| Do it. This is on the PTSD spectrum and in my own case the
| habits of poverty have substantially impacted how I've
| experienced my own life.
|
| 10 years of working 2-3 jobs was enough to crawl out of
| deferred expenses land and pay for a few community college
| classes. I lucked my way into an unexpected pile of cash and a
| decent paying job. I bought a house and a car, and savings
| started piling up. I continued to be hounded by anxiety that I
| didn't notice, because it was the same pot of anxiety I'd been
| boiled in to that point.
|
| Everything was fine and rosy for a while. Eventually the
| anxiety burned out enough fuses to start directing choices.
| What seemed like interests became obsessions. Unpowered hand
| tools can't run out of gas, work when the electricity's off,
| and are easy to fix if they break. Gardening replaced more of
| the shopping list. Wild edibles supplemented gardening. Bicycle
| commuting saves money and makes scavenging more accessible.
| Years of anxiety slowly bloomed into delusions, one thing led
| to another, and quite suddenly I was living out of a bicycle
| and two panniers. The persisting anxiety of poverty pulled the
| plug on my success.
|
| Homelessness, poverty, and mental illness are all outcomes of
| one another. Removing someone from the circumstances of poverty
| or homelessness is only the first step.
|
| I got lucky again, managing to stumble over housing and a
| surfeit of income before homelessness made its recognizable
| mark. Profoundly lucky that by chance I came to know folks
| who've done social work with others recovering from
| homelessness, who told me to get some counseling so I could
| learn to experience the life I had, feel like I own the things
| I own, and stop alternating between resentfulness and fear of
| my own success.
|
| Anyway, I'm gonna be that person now and offer the perspective
| that poverty in the USA is only transactionally similar across
| lines of discrimination. People of color (and other
| marginalized persons) do experience a source of trauma and
| hardship that doesn't go away like poverty does, but does
| additionally compound the frequency and quality of poverty they
| experience.
| bsanr2 wrote:
| You were lucky.
|
| By that, I mean that a non-trivial percentage of the people in
| your circumstances at every step of the way (soup kitchen, GED
| attainment, degree attainment, buying your Corolla, buying your
| house, applying for your $200k/yr job) didn't make it.
|
| I admire your accomplishments. I loathe and rebuke your, "And
| you can too!". The entire point of the essay you're replying to
| is to encourage sympathy and empathy for the people who cannot
| and will not, who will continue to exist in large numbers as
| long as our society remains as it is. You missed the point.
| nomel wrote:
| This is being downvoted, but I think there's some truth here.
|
| I had a stroke that resulted in some permanent loss of
| intelligence. Like most here, I started out a bit higher than
| average, but experienced what it was like to be below average
| (right after) and ramp up to a bit below where I was before
| (after 2 years).
|
| My intelligence, and it's ability to show me the answers to
| difficult problems, the thing that gave me all of my success,
| is only very slightly tied to my efforts/education. I was
| lucky to have been born smart, and it's the only reason I
| "made it". Maybe I could have "made it" some other way, but
| it made my climb out of poverty so much easier. Not everyone
| will be able to climb as well.
| throwaway-0987 wrote:
| I can't edit the original post, but I wanted to clarify that
| the last paragraph was intended to give other poor people hope,
| not to make them feel inadequate. Sort of a cheer leader type
| thing. I probably should have left it out.
|
| You are all right. I was lucky. We all are to some extent. I
| consider my aunt my only real family. I still drive to visit
| her grave each year.
| old_fart_dev wrote:
| Don't apologize for being optimistic.
|
| I wouldn't have gotten where I have without someone telling
| me to take my shot and apply to a good college I dreamed
| about applying to when I was much younger. My parents
| encouraged me to with their blessing. There were plenty of
| neighbors and friend who told me it was a moonshot to get in,
| that I should go to state school, that I couldn't afford it,
| I wouldn't fit in, yadda, yadda, yadda. But I got in, went,
| graduated, and I've done well.
|
| I'm sure if my parents told me it was a long shot, I wouldn't
| have applied. And, I can imagine internalizing this idea that
| I never had a chance because of who I was and where I was
| from.
|
| So don't apologize. You don't need to feed the self-
| righteousness of others.
| Aperocky wrote:
| > They think I'm nuts and say I need counseling. I probably
| do.
|
| Good realization. Too many of us deride counseling as an
| admittance of weakness, it isn't. Hiding from it while
| maintaining there's nothing wrong _is_.
| throw0932439 wrote:
| Just want to say I hate the "yeah but luck"/"yeah but you're
| still privileged because x" going on in the comments and I
| found your comment inspiring, in case you ever doubt it.
|
| I'm poor, but not extreme poverty poor only because I'm "lucky"
| that I've had my parents be able to support me. I have several
| health problems which border on being disabilities (for which
| actually getting support would be very hard). Without my
| parents I'd probably be dead. My goal isn't even not being poor
| just self-sufficient. Of course I'm grateful for having them
| and how hard they've worked to get where they are now, but
| anyone pointing out this "luck" anytime I try to comment about
| my experiences pisses me off to no end. Do you think I don't
| ponder how much worse off I could be? Will dwelling on that
| even more than usual help me or anyone like me? No. It already
| depresses me enough as it is. What helps is hearing that other
| people have managed to improve their lives too (I also look at
| ways I could apply what they did). The worse part is when
| people say it in a way that dismisses all effort on my part
| (which is how it's usually put even if the people writing it
| don't realize it). As if, because statistically there are
| people at my level with worse/better luck that somehow should
| mean anything to me. I'd rather some ignorant rich person
| complain about being "poor" than that sort of thinking. If I
| had put in no effort I would probably still be stuck at home,
| in pain, probably suicidal.
|
| I can't speak for people in extreme poverty, but I can't
| imagine "well, you got the short end of the stick" helps them
| in any way. I would say, yeah, you got the short end of the
| stick, but even more because of that, if you don't try to dig
| yourself out, no one is going to come do it for you. You'll
| fail, again and again and again probably. It's not your fault,
| and yeah, it's not fair. But if you give up there is not even
| the chance of getting out.
| robotnikman wrote:
| It requires both hard work and luck, and neither will really
| come without the other. To discredit either one playing part
| in success seems to be looking at only half of the picture
| zouhair wrote:
| > I made it and you can too. Poverty has no color. It impacts
| everyone. You can't tell just by looking at someone.
|
| You lost me at this conclusion. This is wrong in every sense of
| the word and perfect case of Survivorship Bias[0]
|
| The point of having societies is so we should not fend for
| ourselves, especially rich societies. In rich countries there
| should be no poor people and charity should not exist because
| it is not needed.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
| adkadskhj wrote:
| I think similarly. Add in a pinch of imposter syndrome and the
| anxiety hiding under my privileged life is.. interesting. Eg i
| am super, super fortunate. I definitely don't make 200k, but i
| had no experience, managed to work my way into some experience
| and now make a comfortable living.
|
| My wife and I are DINKs, so while neither of us make amazing
| money in combination we make a solid wage. No retirement (yet),
| but a house, and an income that is starting to pay off life
| (house/retirement/etc) with lots of safety buffer.
|
| With all that said, i'm still terrified of losing everything.
| I'm sure i've acquired some skills, but passing interviews is
| difficult so i always think losing it all is one job loss away.
|
| I just have to focus on improving myself, to mitigate my fear
| of losing it all. I'd like to build software to help people.
| I'd like to make enough money to eventually help some
| individuals, too.
|
| Maybe being poor gives you perspective, but i loathe the
| "bootstraps" mantra. The overwhelming hopelessness you can feel
| when you're poor and see no path upwards. Yea, you can get a
| job, but minimum wage barely pays for itself. You want some
| modest things in life like a house, a car.. but saving for
| those at $200/m takes a long, long time.
|
| I got out. I hope to stay out. But i consider myself lucky.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> My father left home ... My mom ... left us when she found a
| new husband.
|
| The horrible thing is that much worse situations are common
| today. The most common one I've witnessed into is "Dad left,
| mom is sick". The children become primary care givers to the
| remaining disabled parent. That basically axes higher education
| options. Such kids often cannot work outside the home and if
| they do it will be at most part time and very local. One can
| choose not to have children. One can decide not to commit
| crimes. But one cannot choose whether or not to have disabled
| parents/siblings that need 24/7 care. The really dark aspect is
| that children grow up. An unplanned child will grow and
| eventually not need 24/7 care. An aging disabled parent can
| remain at the same level need for many decades, normally
| progressing to greater need with time.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| I have never been Poor, but the kinds of reactions you describe
| can take root with even pretty transient financial stress.
|
| I had a couple very thin years -- savings dwindling, and then
| gone; work was scarce. Collectors were calling. I was afraid I
| was going to lose my house. My power got cut off.
|
| I scraped by, and got out of it, and find myself now in a very
| fortunate position -- better off than I was before, excellent
| income, minimal debt (and zero consumer debt), etc. -- but even
| a couple years of that kind of instability leaves a mark. It's
| not as much as throwaway's, but I'm very debt-averse. I'm very
| risk-averse. We save a LOT. I'll never be in that position
| again.
|
| I find that most people never consider how precarious their
| position really is until an object lesson comes along.
| rafiki6 wrote:
| > If you have never been poor, you may not realize how awesome
| Small houses and Toyota Corollas are.
|
| Love this. These are luxury products for upper middle class
| folks in a lot of developing countries. I don't think people
| really grasp this until they experience it themselves.
| phunster wrote:
| "Throwaway because I don't want my co-workers to know." -Why
| don't you want your co-workers to find out?
|
| "I made it and you can too" - That's just either ignorance or
| really wishful thinking.
| a1369209993 wrote:
| > That's just either ignorance or really wishful thinking.
|
| Or misleading (as a possibly good-faith mistake) use of the
| word "can", that would be better phrased as "I made it and
| you might too".
| oblio wrote:
| > I made it and you can too. Poverty has no color. It impacts
| everyone. You can't tell just by looking at someone.
|
| And yet statistics disagree with you...
|
| Edit: Nevermind, I saw your other comment. You meant to cheer
| people up, not make a moral judgment.
| game_the0ry wrote:
| This comment was a gut punch.
|
| I came from a family that was lower middle class when I was
| young, then upper middle class, then back to lower class before
| I graduated college. And I graduated into the 2008 recession.
|
| When I got my current job back in 2017, I finally felt what I
| though was economic optimism - a sense that the future would be
| better than the past. What a feeling. This phrase is over-used,
| but it did feel like a weight off my shoulders.
|
| Then COVID happened...
| SMAAART wrote:
| My story is somewhat similar to yours, grew up poor AF and in a
| toxic environment. I escaped in my late 20's, moved cross
| country and put myself through college and then MBA part time
| while working full time.
|
| Fast forward to today I am doing well, like you I have no debt
| whatsoever, decent cash flow, and decent net work.
|
| A couple of interesting things:
|
| 1. 1/3 of homeowners in the US are mortgage free
|
| 2. Read the book "The Millionaire Next door"
|
| Third anecdotal note: I have recently switched job, and I work
| in a company where there are about 25 people. Well I have
| noticed that the amount of $ spend on lunch is inversely
| proportional to the pay: the highest paid employees pack their
| lunch from home; the lowest paid go out and buy lunch most
| days, and more expensive lunches.
| pnutjam wrote:
| $200k per year is in the top 10% of salary, I think it's
| actually around top 8%. So, obviously not everyone is going to
| be able to do that. Errors can cause big problems that
| compound, so early in your career it's much easier to be
| derailed. We all like to say, "you could do this too", but it's
| more accurate to say, "I could have ended up like you too, but
| I got lucky".
|
| Speaking as a very lucky person who makes less then you.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| I was poor, received food stamps, stole to eat, and was
| unemployed selling drugs on the side to make scratch. Now I
| make half a million a year and I still recognize my privilege,
| I was a huge outlier. No matter how bad it got, I was still a
| fairly attractive white male who had been introduced to
| computing by his single mother as a very small boy and spent my
| latch key kid time on donated computers. Had I gotten caught up
| in the criminal justice system as a black man, or interviewed
| as a black man, or any of that and my success could not have
| been achieved.
| standardUser wrote:
| I really enjoy your story, but to say "I made it and you can
| too" presumes there is an endless supply of $200k jobs in this
| country. There obviously is not, and we can't conceive of an
| economy wherein there would be, so the "you" who can make it
| "too" is always going to be an exclusive and finite group.
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| I'm on the same path.
|
| House cost 200% yearly pay... drive 2005 Toyota Corolla. I'm
| the poorest dressed millionare you will know. I buy two shirts
| a year and wear conference shirts.
| sologoub wrote:
| Thank you for sharing your experience and the optimism.
|
| That fear feels similar to PTSD - we experienced something we
| never want us or anyone else to experience.
|
| A lot of people don't really understand how much space and
| luxuries we actually have around us. The trick is that in that
| modest house everything works, nothing leaks. The car starts
| and is safe and comfortable enough. If you take these for
| granted, it's no big deal. But if you understand that this is
| in and of itself better than many places, boy is it satisfying
| when you have it. It is also terrifying that you may lose it
| again.
|
| The knowledge I feel makes for the better life. The fear
| unfortunately poisoned it for me for a long time, but I think
| I'm almost past it. Hope you are as well!
| [deleted]
| mc32 wrote:
| One of the things I know poverty did was make me hesitate to
| take on a mortgage. It was such a burden to think at any moment
| I might not have a job and then lose everything.
|
| I also remember being the kid who didn't buy Nikes or the
| natural rubber soles to play sports on parquet, so had to do
| with other sports that didn't have that requirement.
|
| I also remember the PE teacher telling me I could not just wear
| short pants, I needed to get sports shorts...
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Yes, I was afraid of a mortgage as well. But seeing the cost
| of homes rise to outpace my ability to save was what opened
| my eyes.
|
| After buying (mortgaging) a home though, I was surprised that
| it was not the liability I expected it to be -- even with the
| interest on the mortgage, it was my biggest asset and always
| has been.
| adkadskhj wrote:
| Yea, that's why i ended up with a house, too. Rent was so
| variable. It went up and up and up, and while i didn't have
| to deal with repair/etc, it felt like i had no control.
|
| At least with a house i can budget to pay it off and budget
| to repair it. Both seem reasonably stable to plan for,
| assuming you make enough money.
| k__ wrote:
| Same here.
|
| My father left when I was 6. My mother went cleaning to make
| some money. Later, she remarried and my step dad was well off,
| but he also had kids of his own, so it wasn't that much of an
| improvement.
|
| We didn't have much and all of my childhood I played video
| games I borrowed from friends on PCs I built of old parts I got
| from friends or in the trash.
|
| When I went to university, I suddendly met many people who had
| rich parents and I felt like the dumbest person around. I
| guess, I probably was, haha.
|
| Since coding paid well, I could clear all my dept realatively
| early after my degree and now I have saved some money.
|
| But I still have the feeling tomorrow all my clients will
| desert me.
| lkbm wrote:
| I'm curious what about your fears are driving your family
| crazy. Is it living well below your means, forgoing luxuries
| they'd like (and you can afford), or agonizing over every
| spending decision, or what?
|
| I've lived on <$20k (as an individual), and lived very frugally
| as a result, but I've never been in a position where I was
| struggling financially, so I lack any trauma around that. I do
| still have some lingering "Is this $5 item worth it?"
| tendencies, though. Automating bills away can help, but what I
| really like is having a spreadsheet of "if I had to cut back, I
| could easily live on $X month" + "I have $Y saved up" and
| focusing on that ratio. Gives me the appropriate background
| sense of "I'm doing _fine_ ", and allows me to say "fuck it"
| and spend money more readily.
|
| At any rate, if you're driving your family crazy, and you think
| counseling might help, try it. That's one life-improvement
| investment that _doesn 't_ saddle you any long-term financial
| obligations. Your "If I had to cut back" number stays low.
| 35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote:
| As someone who grew up poor, one of the best things I've ever
| done to get past that real hesitancy around spending money is
| to use envelope budgeting (I use YNAB but the tool isn't
| important).
|
| My old habits had me tracking after the fact and I found that
| I either obsessed over minutiae, failed to plan for the
| future, or worried too little about bigger purchases.
|
| But now, I put my money in a virtual envelope the moment it
| comes in, and I have to start thinking about how I'm using
| it: if I empty out the "restaurant" fund, I have the freedom
| to reallocate, but I'm forced to _decide_ to reallocate - I
| don 't just swipe a card and figure it out later.
|
| This also shows me without any question what my current
| baseline is: I can look month over month and know how much of
| my spending is discretionary, how much is saving, and what
| the _bare minimum_ is that I need to survive.
| sandoze wrote:
| Very similar situation. I had a single mother and spent time
| with family and non-family members most of my life. I never had
| much and essentially grew up in a trailer park throughout my
| teenage years with an elderly couple that I called my
| grandparents but weren't even related. They were kind enough to
| take me in.
|
| Fast forward to my 40s and I make a quarter million a year.
| Have a net worth of over a million, a quarter of which is
| liquid sitting in several bank accounts making zero interest..
| but I NEED it there. Own a house outright that is far too small
| for the family I raised in it (the kids have begun to move away
| so it's getting 'bigger'). Max my retirement plans. Go long on
| safe market bets. My car is 12 years old and burns oil (it's a
| Prius so.. it evens out?). I pay my kids college tuition and
| squirrel away all my money.
|
| My wife says most people like to collect things and I collect
| money.
|
| I probably need help but between growing up poor, not figuring
| out a career path until 30, and the Great Recession...
| everything is a bubble and unsafe.
| david-gpu wrote:
| I can relate. You may find that passive value investing
| resonates with you once you learn more about it.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| I collect tools. Why? Because when I am poor again
| (retirement?) I won't be able to afford those expensive
| tools.
|
| Wood and Raspberry Pis, comparatively speaking, are cheaper
| than table saws and oscilloscopes.
| aaroninsf wrote:
| > I won the lottery and you can too. Luck has no color.
|
| Maybe the Wish will help, or Intentionality. Prayer also
| popular.
|
| Against this never lose sight of the fact that since 1971
| economic mobility in this country has eroded as comprehensively
| as has the social safety net as has access to high quality
| public education not to mention health care.
|
| Since 1971 wealth inequality has increased and we are now over
| the event horizon. So much wealth has been concentrated in the
| hands of the ultrarich that they have successfully captured
| both discourse and polity. The possibility space is defined by
| those who own the means of not just literal communication but
| the fabrication of consensus opinion and the boundaries of the
| political spectrum.
|
| What was possible, like this, a generation ago, is literally
| orders of magnitude more unlikely today.
|
| The status quo cannot hold, and it isn't holding. We remain on
| the brink of literal violent fascist coup and permanent
| kleptocracy. Take a look at the headlines from CPAC...
|
| These are dark days.
|
| Most readers here are part of the precariate 10% or aspire to
| be, the buffer zone of the rich-enough who zealously angrily
| defend the prerogatives of the very wealthy with whom they
| identify though they are no more of that class than the utterly
| disenfranchised permanent Lower Class who have roil and rage in
| Nomadland, controlled by the surveillance capitalism systems so
| many of us are building...
|
| It's not going to hold. It's not holding.
| throwaway2a02 wrote:
| > Anyway, people think I'm 'privileged' now because I earn a
| lot of money
|
| Any they are right thinking that,aren't they? That kind of
| money and wealth gives you a huge safety blanket and insulates
| you from most of the stresses described in the article. That's
| the whole point of the article, that this is a huge privilege
| that's overlooked by the well off.
| [deleted]
| zigzaggy wrote:
| I'm glad to hear you made it. I have a similar story, except
| mine involves health problems and homelessness in adulthood. I
| "made it" from living on the streets in Austin TX to being a
| senior manager at a big company. It's SO HARD to dig yourself
| out of that, and I just wanted to say GOOD JOB!
| whack wrote:
| > _I made it and you can too. Poverty has no color. It impacts
| everyone. You can 't tell just by looking at someone._
|
| I love your story. There's also a ton of people who will
| delight in cherry-picking your story, as justification for not
| expanding the social safety net. _" throwaway-0987 did it, and
| you can too! You just need to stop being so lazy"_
|
| A few factors to consider:
|
| - You had an aunt you could live with
|
| - As a youth, you were wise enough to go to trade school and
| college
|
| - As a youth, you were wise/careful enough to not have babies.
| Furthering your education would be far tougher when you have
| kids to take care of
|
| - You had access to government programs such as Pell Grants,
| which many people would deride as being "government handouts"
|
| - As a youth, you were wise enough to avoid crimes that would
| disqualify you from educational/employment opportunities in
| your adult life
|
| Stories like yours are wonderful in inspiring people to make
| something of themselves. But it doesn't change the fact that we
| as a society should do more to help people who are caught in a
| poverty trap, especially because of poor decisions made when
| they were teenagers. Just because someone ran a 4-minute-mile
| doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect everyone to do so.
|
| > _Anyway, people think I 'm 'privileged' now because I earn a
| lot of money, but they have no idea that I used to sleep on the
| floor and eat in soup lines._
|
| As always in such discussions, privilege is on a spectrum and
| has many dimensions. To give an obvious example, even as a
| youth, you were privileged to be an American citizen, with all
| the rights, assistance and opportunities it entails. If you
| were born in the same circumstances in Mexico or Congo, you
| would find yourself facing a far different outcome.
| rossdavidh wrote:
| If you're talking to the people in the professional class
| already, your points are valid. If you're talking to someone
| in OP's situation back then, your points are dispiriting. I
| know you didn't mean it that way, but it is important to a
| person who is in a disadvantaged situation to not hear well-
| meaning members of the professional class saying what sounds
| like, "you can't make your situation better until the whole
| system is changed". I think OP's statement of "I made it and
| you can too" was clearly aimed, not at you or me probably,
| but a person in the same situation that OP was in years ago.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| you make a good point.
|
| The trick is separating "Don't give up" from "it's your
| fault if you haven't escpaed poverty."
|
| Cause it's also dispiriting to have worked your ass off for
| 10+ years and still be poor and have someone telling you if
| you were trying hard enough you would be in a different
| position.
| [deleted]
| lc9er wrote:
| > There's also a ton of people who will delight in cherry-
| picking your story, as justification for not expanding the
| social safety net. "throwaway-0987 did it, and you can too!
| You just need to stop being so lazy"
|
| > we as a society should do more to help people who are
| caught in a poverty trap, especially because of poor
| decisions made when they were teenagers. Just because someone
| ran a 4-minute-mile doesn't mean it's reasonable to expect
| everyone to do so.
|
| Yes. Thank you. Lots of people start out poor and make it
| out. I did. Many friends did. But just as many did not. And
| it had _zero_ to do with "hard work". Almost all of it had to
| with the lack of a robust safety need and the need to
| (endlessly) prioritize survival.
| chmod600 wrote:
| When wearing your policymaking hat, I agree that you should
| consider what people actually do (which is not always wise)
| rather than just what they _should_ do.
|
| But when actually struggling (or perhaps even when
| comfortable), you should forget about policy and fairness and
| just make the best decisions you can and keep trying to do
| the right thing, and that gives you or your children or
| grandchildren the best chance to make it to a comfortable
| place.
|
| You are obvioualy wearing your policymaking hat.
| Unfortunately, policymaking is and endless mess of arguing
| and distracts real people from doing the right thing. Calling
| things "unfair", even if true, is discouraging for struggling
| people and makes them less likely to succeed if they listen
| to you.
|
| The fact is that there's a lot of opportunity here, and a lot
| of people in the world realize that and come here to realize
| the opportunity.
|
| Any message of unfairness, in my opinion, should be coupled
| with the context that the best way forward is still by
| prudent choices and a multi-generational outlook. Like so
| many immigrants have.
|
| You call poverty a "trap", but part of that is imposed by a
| given location. That coal mining town might never come back,
| and opportunities will be scarce. But growing cities will
| always offer opportunity to newcomers. It's much easier to
| "immigrate" from a declining city/town to a growing one than
| from another country.
|
| This is not to say that we can't improve policy. We can. But
| the constant drumbeat of unfairness and victimhood is a
| counterproductive tactic in the policymaking process.
| screye wrote:
| > When wearing your policymaking hat, I agree that you
| should consider what people actually do (which is not
| always wise) rather than just what they should do.
|
| > But when actually struggling (or perhaps even when
| comfortable), you should forget about policy and fairness
| and just make the best decisions you can and keep trying to
| do the right thing, and that gives you or your children or
| grandchildren the best chance to make it to a comfortable
| place.
|
| This exact dichotomy comes up when I give advice. I have
| started calling it ' _advice for persons_ ' vs ' _advice
| for peoples_ ' (the grammatical peculiarity is on purpose).
| Both are often completely different.
|
| OP's advice is great for persons. It doesn't work for
| policy making which is decidedly about peoples. But, I
| don't think that was its intention to begin with.
| Gravityloss wrote:
| Seems high crime rate decreases the efficiency and well
| being of societies a lot.
|
| The person can't live in a dense area and must have a car,
| to avoid other people since they are potentially dangerous.
| Also their workplace is in a dangerous area. So a large
| portion of their money goes to transportation and housing.
|
| What if they were just as poor but the crime rate in
| general was just lower? They could live in dense housing
| and use public transport all day, as could the spouse and
| the kids.
|
| To an outsider, this seems like a really big factor.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| How about a reality hat: the world does not offer everyone
| equal chances. You live in a country surrounded by fences
| and border patrol exactly to keep those that were less
| lucky from trying to get some of that luck.
|
| Even when born in the country, there are better and worse
| schools, better and worse social infrastructure, a billion
| different glass ceilings according to color, gender, age,
| accent or faith.
|
| Your comment perpetuates the eternal lie that everyone can
| rise to the top, but we all know that some have a 50%
| chance and others a 0.0005% chance to 'make it'. It's
| absurd to blame the kid with a bad school and no breakfast
| for not living up to the highest moral standards and take
| all the right decisions when they have probably barely to
| no good advice, guidance or role models.
|
| Its easy to judge, but try to empathise. That's not a
| policy hat, it's acknowledging reality.
| nostrademons wrote:
| I saw nothing of the sort in chmod600's comment. They
| even led with "When wearing your policymaking hat, I
| agree that you should consider what people actually do."
|
| Policymakers in Washington and poor immigrants on the
| streets need different advice, because _they control
| different things_. If you are President or Congressperson
| in the U.S.A, then by all means: let 's have a more
| humane immigration system, and universal health care, and
| a social safety net.
|
| But if you're a poor immigrant in this country, _none of
| that policy is up to you_. Non-citizens don 't get to
| vote; Congresspeople do not listen to them. They risk
| being deported for the slightest infraction. They often
| require their employer to sponsor their continued stay in
| the U.S. They lack financial resources, and oftentimes
| job skills. They lack cultural capital and a support
| network.
|
| But they can control several things. They can control
| _where_ they choose to settle, and move to areas with
| more opportunity. They can control what they choose to
| spend money on, and not let anything out the door that
| isn 't absolutely essential for survival. They can
| control what they do with their time, and allocate that
| to building new skills and pursuing new opportunities. If
| they don't do all of those things, they _will_ fall
| behind, through the cracks, because that 's how life is
| for poor non-citizens in America. It's usually worse for
| poor non-citizens in the countries they came from, too.
|
| Being able to think systemically, act collectively, and
| be free from any sort of reprisal or consequence is
| itself a form of privilege. I thought that chmod600's
| comment acknowledged reality more than yours did, because
| _not everybody has that privilege_. And if you 're one of
| the many people who don't, your best option is to think
| about your own enlightened self-interest, act according
| to the options available to you, consider consequences
| carefully, and not feel too guilty about doing the best
| that you can.
| baby wrote:
| > But the constant drumbeat of unfairness and victimhood is
| a counterproductive tactic in the policymaking process.
|
| I don't get it, do you think the system is fair? Do you
| think it's fine to have so many homeless people in the US
| because they were given a fair chance? Do you think it's
| fair that you can go bankrupt due to a medical issue?
| asoneth wrote:
| In my experience, an individual who believes that success is
| the result of hard work will end up being more successful
| than a similar individual who believes that success is
| primarily due to starting conditions or luck.
|
| At the same time, government policies that acknowledge that
| success is hugely dependent on starting conditions and luck
| seem to result in more equitable societies. (i.e. higher Gini
| coefficient or Shorrocks index)
|
| I don't think there's an inherent conflict between those
| perspectives -- it's boiling them down to two-dimensional
| strawman arguments that makes them look that way.
| opportune wrote:
| Fully agreed. At an individual level, there are often
| decisions you can make regarding career choices, saving,
| when to have children, etc. that can greatly impact your
| financial situation down the line.
|
| At a societal level, not every single person can be a
| software engineer, UI designer, realtor, etc. And
| additionally some fraction of people simply will make
| mistakes or not-strictly-optimal decisions. It's a
| balancing act recognizing that individual decisions can
| have an impact on outcomes, that some portion of people
| will still suffer anyway, and alleviating that suffering as
| much as possible without creating a cycle of
| dependence/socializing the costs of easily fixed issues.
| jimbokun wrote:
| I don't like your take, either, as it suggests we shouldn't
| push young people to make good decisions where possible.
|
| I think what both approaches miss, is the biggest underlying
| problem is Cost Disease:
|
| https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-
| cost...
|
| Reeling in out of control price increases on the most
| important expenses like health care, education and housing
| would do more to improve the lot of the poor than any
| redistribution scheme.
|
| Now, redistribution may be a necessary part of lowering
| costs. Like establishing government run health care to
| control cost increases and investing in public universities
| to radically reduce or eliminate tuition.
|
| This approach helps everyone, but disproportionately helps
| the poor. And controlling costs will help the poor more in
| the long run, I believe, than any redistribution scheme that
| doesn't address skyrocketing costs.
| theodric wrote:
| Insufferable.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| Does it really help to inform someone sharing a story of
| their privation that they could have had it worse? I mean I
| am on board with the notion that there are various aspects of
| privilege, and that someone who had it hard in some dimension
| might have some privilege in others. But it doesn't seem like
| an appropriate response in this context.
| alephu5 wrote:
| Read the conclusion again.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| The conclusion is that poverty from systemic racism
| doesn't exist. I don't know how he ended up there but now
| I understand the need for a throwaway.
| ljm wrote:
| The conclusion is that it is a class problem, and there
| are many mechanisms at play that keep the rich rich and
| the poor poor.
|
| That's the compassionate read on it.
| dahfizz wrote:
| 3 of the 5 factors you list boil down to "OP made good
| decisions and worked hard". I'm not sure how that is a
| counter argument to "throwaway-0987 did it, and you can too!
| You just need to stop being so lazy". From their description,
| it doesn't sound like living with his Aunt was a tremendous
| boon either.
|
| I don't mean to argue against a social safety net (free
| college in this example was certainly a good thing). I just
| mean to say that you can't discount the importance of hard
| work and good judgement. The government can not and should
| not lift people out of poverty if those people refuse to work
| to better themselves.
| relaxing wrote:
| Living with anyone beats being out on the street. And
| probably beat being in the foster system.
| sigstoat wrote:
| > Living with anyone beats being out on the street
|
| a lot of folks on the street disagree
| raverbashing wrote:
| Some have left unsustainable situations, but some were
| the a-hole of the situations.
| zouhair wrote:
| > "OP made good decisions and worked hard"
|
| OP could as easily "made the wrong decisions", it's
| literally a crapshoot.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > The government can not and should not lift people out of
| poverty if those people refuse to work to better
| themselves.
|
| I think everyone is deserving of not living in poverty.
| Even "lazy" people.
| criticaljudge wrote:
| I think people quickly tire of it when they have to take
| care of those lazy people directly. I'm not saying
| nothing should be done. Just that it is a fallacy to
| think the government simply has infinite money to spend.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Probably also a fallacy that it would take infinite
| amounts of money to alleviate poverty (:
| criticaljudge wrote:
| Since people can multiply, infinite amounts is a possible
| scenario. Also scarcity - think of "a kingdom for a
| horse". If there are 1000 apples and 1001 people, and
| everybody who doesn't get an apple starves to death, the
| 1001th apple would be worth an infinite amount of money
| to the 1001th person at least, or to the person who wants
| to save them by all means.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Since people can multiply, infinite amounts is a
| possible scenario
|
| Unless my physics course misled me, no, it isn't.
| xxpor wrote:
| > Just that it is a fallacy to think the government
| simply has infinite money to spend.
|
| They create the money so they literally do. Doesn't mean
| it shouldn't be deployed wisely of course.
| dahfizz wrote:
| If you want to be pedantic, they have the ability to
| create infinite nominal dollars. They cannot create
| infinite wealth.
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| They "create" money out of your pocket.
| criticaljudge wrote:
| If they print money, they devalue the money people
| already have, so in the end again it is the people, not
| "government", who pay.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| When your friend Steve comes to you to "borrow" $100
| (that he'll never return), because he's short on rent,
| and he blew last of his cash on hookers and booze, it
| seems pretty reasonable and perfectly morally justified
| to either refuse outright, or condition your help on
| requirement that Steve gets a job, and quits his hookers
| and booze habit. Certainly, nobody would ever suggest
| that you have any obligation to enable Steve to live his
| desired lifestyle of leisure, hookers and booze.
|
| However, when it's the government that comes and asks you
| to give them $100, so that they could in turn give it to
| Joe, an acquaintance of Steve living the same lifestyle
| that you have never even met, somehow now it is your
| moral obligation to pay up, as Joe clearly deserves your
| money. How does that work?
| datavirtue wrote:
| What if he blew his budget buying cable TV and soda? I
| lived in poverty, and had many aquaintances who were also
| in poverty. Everyone had children, and so many of them
| had $30-40k a year in benefits (welfare). Everyone had
| gaming consoles and very large modern TVs and computers,
| endless soda on tap (that is all they would drink), and
| everyone had cable TV and bought drugs (cocaine,
| weed)...and cigarettes. Everyone I knew. This was just
| their life with no serious ambitions. I forgot to mention
| that most households pulling in government benefits were
| engaged in fraud. Often the fraud was a live-boyfriend
| who contributed money but who's income was not counted on
| the mothers' benefit calculation because she claimed to
| live alone with her children.
|
| Before you make soap box comments you should be aware of
| reality. You might think I'm arguing against welfare
| benefits but I am not. The whole time I watched this
| state of affairs I seethed because it was middle class
| tax payers making up the difference in pay for walmart
| and other corporations who pay poverty wages.
| mattbk1 wrote:
| To add to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26307485,
| the government may be in a position to turn that $100
| directly into food or housing for Steve.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| The $100 Steve asked me to borrow will also turn directly
| into housing. He said that he needs it to meet his rent,
| and he's not lying: he will use it to pay his rent.
| Nevertheless, that just enables him to continue his
| hookers and booze habit.
| ska wrote:
| > How does that work?
|
| Because to a first approximation, that's not what ever
| happens. "Steve" is far more a political talking point
| than a real person.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| Interesting to hear this, when I modeled "Steve" after
| two people I personally know. One is my family member,
| and the other is my middle school acquaintance. Their
| lifestyle is exactly enabled by the money they get from
| government. Should I believe you, or my own lying eyes?
| ska wrote:
| > Should I believe you, or my own lying eyes?
|
| Neither of course! Either believing your own experience
| to generalize well _or_ believing someone random on the
| internet would be crazy talk.
|
| What you should believe is the research on this, which
| admittedly is difficult with anything this politicized.
| What I base it on is a combination of reading some of
| that (though I'm no expert) and knowing some people quite
| well who have had state level responsibility for programs
| of this kind.
|
| Fraud, and "Steves" certainly exist, but it seems that
| the numbers are small enough they don't have much
| systemic impact, there are many much bigger issues.
|
| That's what I meant by "to a first approximation"; not
| that it doesn't exist, but the effect isn't of 1st order
| importance.
| landryraccoon wrote:
| Paying Steve $100 isn't the only option.
|
| If my alcoholic friend from college came to me because he
| was short on rent or needed to buy them groceries, I
| wouldn't give them $100. I'd offer to buy them groceries
| or write a check to the landlord directly.
|
| The government can do the same thing. If someone needs
| healthcare or education and can't afford it, pay for the
| healthcare or education. A social net doesn't mean a
| blank check.
| RobertKerans wrote:
| It works because that's not the calculation being made.
| You're not giving up money specifically to a "Steve" or
| "Joe". What you are doing is putting money into a pool.
| From that pool, the money is redistributed in such a way
| as to provide baseline income to people in need. Most of
| the people it is redistributed to are not "Steve" or
| "Joe", and the calculation is that it is cheaper to
| ignore free riders such as Steve/Joe as they are a small
| minority. The calculation is also that _not_ providing
| this baseline is both economically bad (providing a
| baseline seems to be much more cost effective than
| dealing with effects of not doing that) and morally bad
| (most of the people in need of the baseline are in need
| of it not [directly] through fault of their own)
| lasfter wrote:
| Because some of the money also goes to Sally who
| genuinely needs help. I don't understand how you can be
| okay with people starving or working themselves to death
| to survive and provide for their families, just because
| others do things you disapprove of.
|
| You're also ignoring the fact that someone who is
| eligible for this kind of social security and spends it
| all on booze is probably unwell and needs treatment for
| addiction and the conditions that cause it. In many
| cases, the cause of addiction is poverty itself.
|
| This fear of being "scammed" by the Joes and Steves of
| the world is completely irrational. The government is
| taking a big chunk of your money anyways. What's being
| proposed is that instead of spending tax dollars on
| killing poor people abroad, you spend it on helping poor
| people at home, regardless of their work ethic.
| eecc wrote:
| well said, thank you.
| vinger wrote:
| If society agrees to give $100 to the military you have
| no say in how they spend it.
|
| If society agrees to give $100 to Steve then you have no
| say in how that move is spent.
|
| If you think it's better not to give to Steve anything
| and you lobby to change the law and are successful. When
| Andre is affected by this change he decides to make up
| the difference by breaking into your place and killing
| you. At least Steve doesn't have his hookers right?
| mcguire wrote:
| In your mind, is blowing the "last of his cash on hookers
| and booze" the median behavior of people who are short on
| rent?
| xyzzyz wrote:
| No, but the point is that when my friends ask me for
| help, I can use the circumstances under which they got
| themselves into needing help in my decision of whether I
| help them, and whether there is any moral obligation on
| me to help them. With government, there is no such
| option: they will take my money by force, use it for
| anything at all that they might possibly want, and all I
| can say is something on the order of one or two bits of
| feedback every 4-5 years.
| dahfizz wrote:
| In your mind, does that description fit absolutely nobody
| who is short on rent?
| dv_dt wrote:
| I am confused by this. The comment is against taking care
| of lazy people directly, but also hits on government
| spending which would be the way to make direct personal
| care of lazy people indirect. As to the infinite money -
| we have more than enough productive capacity to supply
| basics of life to everyone without trying to somehow
| further weigh if their laziness needs to be punitively
| motivated for basic living support.
|
| Is this some fear that if we provide basic supports for
| everyone that "too many" people would not move beyond
| basics? That really seems unlikely.
| criticaljudge wrote:
| I was replying to an absolute statement, "every lazy
| person deserves x". My point is that there are probably
| more aspects to consider in general.
|
| Your claims that we have "more than enough" are unproven,
| imo.
|
| Let's take housing. Is your claim that there is enough
| good housing around for everybody, or that it could be
| built quickly? How quickly - how many houses are needed,
| by your estimate? How many building workers are
| available, and how fast could they build? How many heavy
| machines (cranes, trucks, bulldozuers...) are available
| on short notice, to speed up the building?
|
| I don't think many such machines are sitting around idly,
| and the same goes for construction workers. That means
| housing is already being built at maximum capacity, and
| yet there still aren't enough affordable houses.
|
| Just because Apple can make billions of dollars of
| surplus, doesn't mean there is the equivalant of building
| machines sitting around idly, waiting to be hired with
| Apple's money (taking Apple as an example of a rich
| surplus company).
|
| In fact that money is just debt, literally IOUs - "I owe
| you". Apple selling an iPhone to people for 1000$ means
| they trust those people will someday repay them with
| something worth roughly 1000$. That something could be a
| building machine. But that machine does not have to exist
| yet - at the point of sale, all there is is Apple's trust
| in "the people" to at some point provide that building
| machine.
|
| Now if Apple were to say today "screw it, we are spending
| all our money on building houses for the poor", it would
| probably result in the equivalent of a bank run. Apple
| would try to rent or buy 10000 construction machines in a
| single go, but that many machines don't exist. So "the
| people" would have to go oopsie and say "actually, you
| can not get a bulldozer for your money".
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Its actually quite a good claim, for example if we
| examine UK: we have more empty houses than we have
| homeless people, and we have more food thrown away as
| waste than what would be needed to feed said homeless
| people.
|
| Furthermore, suppose you were to budget 3000 calories of
| basic food for every person in Uk, you'd find it's a tiny
| fraction of national budget.
| criticaljudge wrote:
| So the only reason those homeless people don't get their
| houses is that nobody wants to give them to them? I
| rather doubt that number. More likely those empty houses
| are in places where nobody wants to live, or that are
| unsuitable for homeless (because the environment to
| support them is missing in the location).
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| The empty houses in UK and especially London is a well-
| known and researched problem, they are prime real estate
| where the owner decided that renting them out is not
| worth the trouble, they are just land-banking and waiting
| for their 'investment' to grow. Many (of those) owners
| don't even live in UK.
|
| We had a 'homeless' guy build his house in a forest, but
| ofcourse the government showed up to remove him. Many
| people would sort themselves out if we did not prevent
| them from doing so.
|
| The narrative of shortage is an obsolete idea from the
| 19th century. We produce more food, steel, oil, and every
| other real industrial good than we know what to do with.
| These discussions are like fighting WW2 with medieval
| tactics.
|
| Today's economy is not limited by production like it was
| 100 years ago, its limited by consumption. By growing
| inequality and pushing people into poverty, the '1st
| world' is reducing consumption and destroying it's
| economy.
|
| Think about it - how can we have abandoned factories,
| unemployed workers and surplus of all materials?
|
| Think what 'productivity growth' means - if 40 hours a
| week was enough to feed and clothe everyone 70 years ago,
| and productivity went up 400%, how many hours do we need
| now?
|
| That why we have useless hobs, and 60% of employees
| believe their job is useless.
|
| The problem is not about morally corupt rich people being
| in charge, its about morons being in charge. If they were
| clever but evil, at least the system would not crash
| every 8 few years
| dahfizz wrote:
| > By growing inequality and pushing people into poverty
|
| I am sick of hearing about poverty as a growing problem.
| It simply isn't.
|
| Median income, and the lowest income quintile, have grown
| steadily. The percent of Americans living in poverty has
| been declining. Median wealth is still lower than it was
| before the 2008 crisis, but it was growing strongly
| before and has grown strongly since the Great Recession.
|
| All trends are upwards. Do not confuse growing inequality
| with growing poverty. Some are getting richer faster than
| others, but statistically everyone is getting richer.
|
| Is there a specific metric in mind when you say people
| are being pushed into poverty? Or is it something you
| have just heard elsewhere?
| DataWorker wrote:
| Homelessness is obviously increasing though it's
| difficult to measure with precision. Homelessness is
| worse than poverty and homeless aren't even counted in
| official poverty calculations. The census can't sample
| them.
| overlords wrote:
| Do they need to be typical houses?
|
| About 10 million cars are produced in the USA every year.
| An RV/Trailer type thing is like a car - so quite easily
| you could imagine producing that many of these 'tiny
| houses' every year with car style factories.
|
| About 600k people are homeless in the USA. That's about
| equal to the number of RV's produced every year.
|
| So that solves 'physical' homelessness quite quickly if
| there was an effort to. (that disregards that some
| homeless choose to homeless out of mental illness etc)
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I don't think they are lazy.
|
| Many have emotional problems.
|
| Most people complain about their jobs, or multiple jobs,
| but know it provides so much more than money. Half the
| people I know would have 0 friends, O social life, if not
| for those lousy jobs.
|
| It's ironic you say the government doesn't have infinite
| money to spend.
|
| We are about to throw close to two trillion out of a
| helicopter. There is not a person, well one, on my block
| in Marin County that has not benefited financially from
| the virus, but will be getting $1400 to blow.
|
| I am worried about inflation.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Inflation of US currency is dead.
| criticaljudge wrote:
| The OP was specifically a bout "lazy people", so your
| claim that they are not lazy does not make any sense at
| all.
|
| You can argue that there may be no actual lazy people,
| but that is another discussion.
|
| "We are about to throw close to two trillion out of a
| helicopter."
|
| Are you really not aware that the bill for that will
| simply come later (as it is a debt taken out on behalf of
| the population), and in the process of creating those two
| trillion, existing money has already been devalued?
| retrac wrote:
| Most of the people I know who don't work who are
| sometimes dismissed as lazy have mental issues. In the
| family of ADHD, or anxiety. Unable to focus on pursuing a
| particular path long enough for it to pay off. Easily
| frustrated and prone to giving up when frustrated. And
| often a crippling doubt that they're capable of doing
| anything worth being paid for in the first place.
|
| I suspect clever lazy people without barriers to social
| or economic participation usually seek out, and often
| obtain, jobs where they're paid to do approximately
| nothing. Lazy people, assuming that category is even
| meaningful, aren't masochists who want to live in
| poverty. There's more going on there.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| I think most people here are guily of double-think.
| Either you believe in capital punishment, or you believe
| in universal income, the third option is hypocracy.
|
| If you don't believe in state sanctioned murder, then we
| have to clothe and feed and house people that commited
| horrible crimes.
|
| Surely if a rapist deserves to be fed, so does an
| innocent person who can't find a job? Being useless is
| not a crime.
|
| Also i dispute this qualification as lazy - some people
| are disorganised, not very clever, etc. You can only
| claim laziness if we had like a right to a job no matter
| what.
| covidthrow wrote:
| > Surely if a rapist deserves to be fed, so does an
| innocent person who can't find a job?
|
| The State actively deprived the rapist of their ability
| to act autonomously to care for themselves, so they are
| obligated to do so on their behalf. The State (typically)
| does not actively deprive an innocent person who can't
| find a job of their autonomy. (There are some arguable
| scenarios in which they do, however, such as excessive
| fines, but obligation to pay those are dependent on
| ability, and feeding ones-self supercedes that in most
| jurisdictions.)
|
| > some people are disorganised, not very clever, etc. You
| can only claim laziness if we had like a right to a job
| no matter what.
|
| It is ethical to care for those who are unable to care
| for themselves. It's not as clearly ethical to force
| someone else to care for those who are unable to care for
| themselves.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| The state could put the same deal to the rapist as it
| does to everyone else: work if you want to eat. It does
| not.
|
| Calling the unemployed lazy is a lie untill you offered
| them a job and they refused.
| dahfizz wrote:
| > The state could put the same deal to the rapist as it
| does to everyone else: work if you want to eat. It does
| not.
|
| And you would be okay with that? You're advocating for
| actual slavery of inmates?
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Not at all, I am just following the logic trail and
| seeing where it goes
| dahfizz wrote:
| For some definition of "deserving", I would agree.
| Certainly, everyone should have the tools and
| opportunities they need to build the life they want.
|
| Society has limited resources. Until we manage the post-
| scarcity utopia, I would prefer my tax dollars go to
| someone who will use them to build a better life.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Half of _all private wealth_ is inherited, not earned
| through work, by the wealthiest 5% of households.
|
| In that context, why focus on giving small portions of
| wealth to those in poverty (even if they aren't working
| as hard as you think they ought to)?
| criticaljudge wrote:
| The notion that children don't deserve the spoils of
| their parents is really crazy to me. Parents work so that
| they can give their children a better life. Heck, they
| even choose their partners to maximize odds for a better
| life for their offspring (wealth, good genes, and so on -
| it does not even depend on capitalism).
|
| To take that away from people is truly dehumanizing, but
| sounds like a typical socialist scheme (destroy the
| family, destroy individualism, everything has to be the
| same).
| whimsicalism wrote:
| So you are only deserving of a life free of poverty (even
| if you're lazy) if your parents happened to be rich?
|
| Yeah, I disagree. We're talking about on the order of
| tens of millions of dollars or more being passed from one
| parent to one child.
| overlords wrote:
| 1 rich person saving his money so his 3 children never
| have to work is bad for the economy.
|
| It's better the 1 rich person is forced to consume that
| in his lifetime. By doing so that money is redistributed
| back to the economy, and his 3 kids are also productive.
|
| In scenario 1 only 1 out 4 people work. In scenario 2, 4
| out of 4 people work.
|
| Also - it's hypocritical for 'pull yourself by your
| bootstraps' for children born poor, and 'guaranteed basic
| income' for children born rich. That is more dehumanizing
| than not being allowed to pass off inheritance.
| gizmondo wrote:
| When rich person pays others to, let's say, build a
| luxurious castle, the money is both redistributed back to
| the economy AND the castle is there to use, for a few
| centuries at least. That's how investing* makes the
| society wealthier, and promoting consumption instead is
| nuts.
|
| * There is a caveat that it should be a new investment
| rather than a purchase of the existing one, which is
| zero-sum.
| dahfizz wrote:
| Its hard for me to imagine being so full of envy that you
| would like to see the children of rich people stripped of
| everything they have. Equality means nothing if you
| achieve it by pulling everyone down to the lowest level.
|
| > 1 rich person saving his money so his 3 children never
| have to work is bad for the economy.
|
| "Your rights are bad for the economy, we are taking
| everything from you. Back to work, pleb".
| covidthrow wrote:
| If one were to redistribute _all_ of the top 5% 's wealth
| at once:
|
| - it wouldn't be liquid, so you'd be giving part
| ownership in assets
|
| - the value would be slightly less than median yearly
| _income_ per recipient. At a pretty sizeable 5% average
| return, the individuals would net about $2,000 a year.
|
| - if they chose to sell the assets, they would end up
| with about one year's median income and then it's gone
|
| I'm not sure how much money you think lives up at the
| top, but redistributing it is not sustainable, and it's
| certainly not enough to magically pull everyone out of
| poverty indefinitely. (Or even for very long, at that.)
|
| There are a ton of reasonable discussions to be had about
| imbalanced power structures between socioeconomic groups,
| but this whole redistribution thing is just a fantasy.
|
| One can look at a million/billionaire and say, "oh, this
| person has 50 cars. That's _way_ too many cars for one
| person to have! Let 's give them away to people who
| actually _need_ cars! " So you seize them and give them
| away--along with the other 12,000 super wealthy people
| that own 50 or more cars--and then you have... 200,000
| people who still don't have cars.
|
| For groups that preach so frequently about global and
| ecological sustainability, there's a disturbing blind
| spot for economic sustainability. I think that's more a
| feature of envy than responsibility, unfortunately.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > For groups that preach so frequently about global and
| ecological sustainability, there's a disturbing blind
| spot for economic sustainability
|
| What you've done is described a position ("redistributing
| all of the top 5%'s wealth at once"), described the
| problems with it, and then criticized my obvious blind
| spots due to this oversight. Forgotten in this tale is
| that I never held that position in the first place! You
| are criticizing your own invented argument.
|
| Also, even if I did favor redistributing all wealth in
| the top 5% of families, a simple back-of-napkin
| calculation shows that your argument is wrong.
|
| 107 * 10^12 (total networth of US households [0]) * 0.619
| (share owned by top 5% [0]) * 0.05 (rate of return) /
| (315*10^6 (population of US)) = $10k/yr for every person
| in the US just off of the returns from that wealth, which
| is 5x your estimate. The US Census poverty threshold is
| making below $13k/yr. If that wealth was held for you
| until you were 18, that would be every young person
| starting their life with $180k in savings, which is
| another $9k/yr with 0.05 rate of return.
|
| Obviously, there's a whole host of issues with this,
| including some of the ones you mentioned, and (of course)
| price inflation, but I am not sure how you calculated
| your numbers.
|
| [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_t
| he_Unite...
| dahfizz wrote:
| > I'm not sure how much money you think lives up at the
| top, but redistributing it is not sustainable, and it's
| certainly not enough to magically pull everyone out of
| poverty indefinitely.
|
| People just do not understand this. You could take away
| every penny from every billionaire in this country. If
| you sold everything they had, you would not have enough
| money to fund the federal government for even one year.
| And now the money is gone; you can no longer collect tax
| from the ex-wealthy.
|
| Nevertheless, "just tax the rich" is treated as the
| solution to all problems. I guess people hear all the
| talk about the "top one tenth of one percent" and they
| imagine literally bottomless bank accounts.
| 35fbe7d3d5b9 wrote:
| This is a lie. The world has enough resources to feed,
| clothe, and house everyone. We've chose to build a system
| that does not.
|
| Perhaps you find that defensible, perhaps you find that
| appalling, but argue that position, not one that isn't
| true.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| "We've chose to build a system that does not."
|
| The kind of poverty where you starve and have to wear
| rags is becoming rare even in Africa. From this point of
| view, the system has clearly worked and the pendulum even
| went too far, with obesity becoming a serious problem in
| places that aren't typically considered rich (Mexico,
| Brazil).
|
| Housing is a different problem. We have a housing crisis
| because many people want to live in a few select urban
| hotspots of the world.
| ctdonath wrote:
| We only have that much because of the incentive to
| produce. Redistribute, by compulsion, the fruits of one's
| labors and most will soon stop laboring. I may be able to
| support >10, but compel me to and my productivity will
| plummet.
| mandmandam wrote:
| "compel me to and my productivity will plummet."
|
| What you call incentive is really compulsion, just of a
| more extreme form.
| idrios wrote:
| This statement reads to me the same as something like
| "Computers have the resources to find the cure for
| cancer, but we've chosen not to find that cure." You're
| using the word "chosen" as if we know how to build the
| system you're describing. Our understanding of technology
| is sufficiently advanced to build a system that feeds,
| clothes and houses everyone, but our understanding of
| social sciences is not there yet.
| leetcrew wrote:
| > The world has enough resources to feed, clothe, and
| house everyone.
|
| this is kind of reductive claim. in one sense, it's
| trivially true that the earth has more raw resources than
| humans can consume even over the course of centuries.
| AFAIK it's also true that, under the current system of
| organization, the global economy produces enough finished
| goods to feed, clothe, and house everyone (though people
| often bring up logistical caveats here, eg, distributing
| stuff in places where there are no paved roads or
| airfields).
|
| the real question here is whether we would still have
| that quantity of finished goods under a different system
| of organization with different incentives. to be clear, I
| don't discount the possibility that we might have even
| more! but it seems more likely to me that people would
| simply produce less stuff if they didn't get to keep the
| surplus by default.
| lostcolony wrote:
| Just like how that increase in marginal tax rate prevents
| anyone from climbing into the upper tax brackets (and why
| we never had millionaires back when the top bracket was >
| 90%), eh?
|
| Of course people can keep the surplus. Some of it. But
| we're a far, far cry from the point where people will
| stop working when only getting a percentage of their
| labor's worth (or their parent's labor's worth, as is
| often the case).
| leetcrew wrote:
| > and why we never had millionaires back when the top
| bracket was > 90%
|
| some caveats apply to this offhand quip (very different
| tax laws and perhaps even widespread evasion meant almost
| no one was paying an effective tax of 90%, regardless of
| actual income). I suspect you know this.
|
| I'm sure there's a lot of slack in the tax brackets. I
| doubt we are close to a laffer curve inflection point.
| all I'm saying is I'm not convinced by the style of
| argument that goes "we already have enough food for
| everyone; we just need to radically reorganize the
| economy and then no one will go hungry!". more analysis
| is needed.
| criticaljudge wrote:
| Sustainable resources? Food production relies heavily on
| fossil fuels, for example. But I suspect the same people
| who make that claim you make also make the claim that it
| would be easy to solve the climate crisis, we'd just have
| to act more sensibly.
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| I think the ones you are thinking of are those that
| specifically called out as being made as a child or only
| just out of childhood. Yes people who work hard in school
| or university should be rewarded (both in principle and
| because, as a practical matter, they make a financially
| greater contribution to society). But the converse to that
| doesn't _fully_ hold: people that make bad decisions as a
| child should still be given a chance to redeem themselves,
| somehow, later in life.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| 3 of the 5 factors you list boil down to being able to make
| the right decision because of outside factors. In this
| case, the aunt. Without that single person, I imagine
| things might have been different.
|
| > The government can not and should not lift people out of
| poverty if those people refuse to work to better
| themselves.
|
| 3 of those 5 factors began with "As a youth..."
|
| The government can and should help the youth lift
| themselves out of poverty regardless of the situations of
| their parents or other situations. They lack many rights
| that adults have, and in exchange for that, they deserve
| better support then demanding children should simply "work
| to better themselves."
| heurist wrote:
| You'd throw impoverished and depressed people under the bus
| because they can't muster the energy to "better"
| themselves?
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| Why is it "throw under the bus" or help them?
| renewiltord wrote:
| The way I see it is that we should optimize less for the
| theory of pure agency. It's like the Polgar sisters -
| bootstrapping with structure yields benefits.
|
| So it's less about "refuse to work to better themselves"
| and more about correctly placing incentives on the growth
| path for individuals so that they become the kind of people
| who want to "better themselves".
|
| Of course there are those who, provided any amount of
| support, will not become productive individuals and it
| makes sense to continuously evaluate for growth.
|
| But it is beneficial to society and to each participant to
| offer a minimum childhood to adulthood transition
| experience that optimizes for productive adults.
|
| Of course, this is usually only important for the poor
| because most wealthier people are better at bringing up
| children.
| varjag wrote:
| I think the point is, with a middle-class (let alone
| wealthy) background few of those poor decisions in the
| youth spiral out into lifetime handicaps.
| nemothekid wrote:
| > _" OP made good decisions and worked hard"_
|
| On a national or even global scale I try to avoid
| generalizations like this because trivially they don't lead
| to good policy outcomes. It's almost a little like stock
| picking. If 5/100 hedge funds make a positive return over
| the year, my first thought isn't "the other 95 refused to
| work to better themselves".
|
| It's easy to understand this with hedge funds, but people
| commonly make this mistake when talking about human beings.
| You wouldn't be taken seriously if you said those hedge
| funds lost money because "they refused to work hard". I
| feel most people are the same way - I don't think any
| rational actor refuses to better themselves, rather it is a
| fallacy we tell ourselves to explain why things the way
| they are. I've seen plenty of "hard working" people
| relegated to poverty because their kid got sick.
|
| Finally, the best solution is not to focus on individual
| funds, but on the index. Providing a better baseline for
| _all_ companies leads to a better overall index and having
| a strong economy involves having a section of it the
| "wastes" a lot of money investing in the in the future.
| playingchanges wrote:
| I like your analogy but I'm not sure it's perfect. In the
| finance world I don't think anyone would presume to say
| more work === more success. There is a talent component
| that is not perfectly replicable across hedge funds. BUT
| in real life more work very often does equal more success
| because so many careers really do not require a high
| level of 'talent'.
| nemothekid wrote:
| Your counter argument seems to imply that people who work
| in finance don't share the same reality as the rest of
| us. I think that plays into a fundamental human error;
| for some reason when looking at individual industries we
| can see that the people can put in more or less the same
| amount of effort and get different results, but on a
| national scale we attribute effort much more highly, to
| the point we call losers lazy.
|
| To be clear I'm not saying there isn't a level of
| difference in talent or work ethic; what I'm arguing is
| that viewing the world that way makes for terrible
| government policy. When someone says something like
| "welfare makes people lazy", they are making the mistake
| you are. Somehow the imaginary "real life work" is
| directly correlated with effort, but _actual_ finance
| jobs are not.
| lostcolony wrote:
| Certainly, ingredients such as hard work and talent help
| make success more likely.
|
| There are successful companies and products that don't
| seem to have a lot of either behind them beyond the
| initial work to find a successful niche, that they've
| leveraged to great success. And companies and projects
| have failed despite having both of those because of
| circumstances outside of their control.
|
| Just like people, companies are products of their
| environment. Why -doesn't- someone work hard? Or make the
| right choices? Because either of their environment, what
| they've learned, or because of who they were born as.
| Neither of those is under their control. And even if they
| do, and it doesn't pan out, why didn't it pan out? Again,
| factors outside of their control.
| andi999 wrote:
| Actually for most funds it is the hindsight component.
| Your bank sets up 20 funds, and then after two years
| promotes the ones which performed well.
| dionidium wrote:
| This is a good framing for thinking about policy, but if
| you were _talking to an individual company_ that seemed
| not to be working hard or executing on their goals, then
| you would give them all the standard advice about
| correcting that behavior.
|
| This difference between individual advice and group-level
| policymaking (mentioned elsewhere in this thread by
| chmod600) accounts for a lot of talking past one another
| in political debates. They are two totally separate
| levels of analysis.
| lostcolony wrote:
| Thank you for this analogy.
|
| Because...yes. So much yes. Even had this person engaged
| in crime ('to feed his family!'), but still come out of
| it on top, we'd be saying "see? Even with those slip ups,
| he did the right thing most of the time and came out on
| top", but then we turn around and three strikes, lock
| someone else up for decades. And we don't know the people
| who failed, despite doing everything 'right', who died
| homeless and malnourished.
| nostrademons wrote:
| Judging from the folks I know in the finance industry,
| _they_ would probably say 'those hedge funds lost money
| because "they refused to work hard"'. Bloomberg built a
| massive business off the idea that finance professionals
| need to be constantly informed about everything that goes
| on in the markets or else they'll be one of the losers.
|
| Perhaps there are some fund managers out there that are
| just like "Yep, it's a rigged system, I'm going to be the
| one getting rich off rigging it", but I haven't met one
| personally yet.
| charlesu wrote:
| > The government can not and should not lift people out of
| poverty if those people refuse to work to better
| themselves.
|
| At some point automation will leave us in a place where
| many, if not most, people's labor is literally worthless
| because they're not mechanics or engineers. Then what?
| Should those people starve even as we live in a time of
| abundance instead of scarcity? At what point does this
| concept of deservedness do more harm than good?
| nindalf wrote:
| > 3 of the 5 factors you list boil down to "OP made good
| decisions and worked hard"
|
| One of those "decisions" was avoiding prison. OP says
| people call him privileged, so he probably didn't belong to
| a race that is jailed disproportionately for crimes that
| white people are let off for.
| whack wrote:
| There's an extra layer of nuance missing in your reply. 3
| of the 5 factors boil down to "op made good decisions and
| worked hard" AS A TEENAGER. OP's formula won't work for a
| 30-year old who is trying to work equally hard and making
| equally good decisions... if they are saddled with poor
| educational qualifications, kids to take care of, and/or a
| criminal history. At which point, we as a society are faced
| with 2 options:
|
| 1. We can tell them it's their own fault for not making
| great decisions when they were teenagers, and therefore,
| they deserve to remain stuck in a poverty trap for the rest
| of their lives
|
| 2. Or, we can acknowledge that they are now in a situation
| where hard work alone is unlikely to solve their problems.
| And we can provide them with the tools they need to help
| themselves, and also become more valuable assets to
| society. For example, subsidized/free college or job
| training. Free/subsidized childcare. Safe living
| environments. Better access to healthcare. Better public
| transit so they can actually get to work. Etc
| lc9er wrote:
| > The government can not and should not lift people out of
| poverty if those people refuse to work to better themselves
|
| Who do you think wakes up and thinks, "I love poverty. This
| life is so easy"?
| dahfizz wrote:
| Lots of people wake up and never evaluate their life at
| all. People win the lottery and end up homeless with a
| drug addiction. If millions of dollars can't help them,
| do you think the government should keep writing those
| people checks?
| thebradbain wrote:
| This is a strawman argument, because this is in no way
| representative of the many people who live in poverty,
| but I'll address it because it doesn't change my final
| opinion:
|
| Yes, because obviously what someone who won (and lost)
| millions of dollars needs is not money, but help and
| support.
|
| Not to mention, by the construction of your own strawman,
| if they've won such a jackpot they've probably also then
| paid millions in taxes.
| dahfizz wrote:
| I don't see how this is a strawman. My argument is an
| existence proof. There exists people who cannot be lifted
| out of poverty by giving them money. I can trivially
| prove my claim by giving examples of such people[1]. I
| never claimed that all or most people are like this. But
| its undeniable that some people are simply irresponsible
| / lazy.
|
| [1]
| https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/08/15/5-million-
| lotto-...
| ska wrote:
| > of hard work and good judgement.
|
| The common mistake here, which I think you mostly avoided
| but didn't make explicit, is to believe that if someone
| didn't make it they didn't work hard or have good judgment.
|
| It's also problematic how little good judgment we require
| of young people coming from most backgrounds, compared to
| underprivileged ones. There is also a common and mostly
| false trope that many/most poor people are lazy and that is
| why they are poor. The truth is at minimum more nuanced
| than that.
| gexla wrote:
| Interested to hear your thoughts about the thread about living
| in a van which hit the front page the other day.
| diob wrote:
| Depending on where you live, you're right to live in fear. In
| the USA, you're probably one medical emergency (cancer?) away
| from bankruptcy.
|
| I'm glad you got out, but hard work is no guarantee. A lot in
| this world is luck and connections.
|
| "I made it and you can too" should be "I made it, but lots of
| others don't. If you work hard, you might, but don't be
| discouraged if you don't. It's possible to do all the right
| things and not make it out. If you make it out, give back to
| those who are in similar situations, and try to improve the
| pathway out of the darkness."
| SN76477 wrote:
| Thank you for your story I can relate. I grew up with out
| enough, and now I am terrified of spending money.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I got to experience wealth and poverty growing up,
| unfortunately in that order. Parents were pretty wealthy and
| then we moved to the US at 13 and had to leave everything
| behind. Going from a house with pool, BMW's etc to food stamps,
| constant threat of foreclosure and no health insurance is
| pretty jarring. I was way better off than many others though.
| Far better off than OP's start. Worst part of being poor or
| being raised by those that are poor due to both circumstances
| and bad choices is that you dont learn to make sane financial
| decisions. I was never taught how to balance a check book or to
| live within my means and that lack of both education and
| discipline has haunted me my whole life. Reached a point where
| I make over 200k now and finally the surplus of funds have been
| a wakeup call that 'Hey, you can save and you can eventually
| retire if you just wake up and stop spending like you're going
| to die tomorrow'. Another vital lesson is to focus on the long
| run instead of trying to hit a home run with every investment.
|
| Financial literacy should be the a 4 year highschool class. Not
| being fluent is a detriment to millions.
| krmmalik wrote:
| Have you considered trauma release (there are many different
| ways you can do this) in order to get over your fear of being
| poor?
|
| From the way you're speaking (for want of a better phrase), it
| sounds like the poverty experience traumatised you, and you're
| re-living your trauma each day.
| nomel wrote:
| I can relate very closely with grandparent. For me, I don't
| consider it "traumatizing" as much as "moderating" from a
| very clear perspective of how well I have it now, how rare
| that actually is, and how much ridiculous excess most people
| are comfortable with.
| allarm wrote:
| I think if we just replace "privileged" with "lucky" it would
| greatly improve the overall tone of the message for many,
| myself included. I.e. "I was lucky enough to be born in a
| family of engineers" sounds much better than "privileged" in
| this context.
| devwastaken wrote:
| If it were as easy now as getting paid to go to college and get
| a decent job it wouldn't be so bad - but prices have increased
| exponentially due to that federal aid. Instructor quality has
| significantly decreased, and administrative bloat has
| skyrocketed (these people can't get Jobs in the private sector
| either and government money is free). Jobs in technical fields
| are not in demand in the manner higher education advertises. As
| I've said before here I still have friends with bachelor CS
| degrees turned down from entry positions because the majority
| of companies are experience siphoners. There's entire youtube
| channels exampling the level of exploit companies can do
| because CS grads don't have the choice.
|
| Sure, overcoming poverty is possible, but it's a shifting scale
| over time thats heading in much worse directions due to
| inflation in basic living costs and companies and individuals
| breaking the ladder that got them on the surface.
| simonh wrote:
| Ive never been truly impoverished. The nearest I ever got was
| living off the minimum student allowance back in the 80s.
|
| On the edge of solvency it takes so little for things to go
| badly wrong, even if your scrupulously careful. On the other
| hand, it's the ability to make effective use of financing
| options and to leverage even modest wealth or income through
| mortgages and such that enables a lot of middle class families
| to prosper as much as they do.
| syops wrote:
| I very much enjoyed reading your post. You made a statement
| that, taken literally, I disagree with and wonder if you care
| to elaborate more on it.
|
| _I made it and you can too._
|
| It seems to me that luck plays a huge role in each success
| story like yours. My wife had a similar trajectory and makes
| quite a bit of money. However, along the way, there were
| hundreds of decisions made that could have gone the wrong way.
| She's smart and ambitious and quite lucky.
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| Luck is opportunity + skills. It is not some arcane skill
| that you're born with or not.
| grumple wrote:
| I have a similar story and luck played no part of it. I spent
| lots of time in public libraries and on public computers as a
| kid. As a result, I got an academic scholarship. A few years
| after graduating amidst the 2008 economic crisis, I heard
| about a company that used a particular programming language.
| I learned that language and convinced someone I knew at the
| company to get me an interview. I aced the interview and got
| the job. A lot of studying and a couple of job interviews
| later and I'm making good money at another company.
|
| If you study the right things, you'll get "lucky" in
| interviews because the more problems you've seen in the
| domain, the more likely you are to be tested against the
| knowledge you've already acquired. But that's clearly not
| luck - it's preparation. You won't ace every interview, but
| you'll do well in enough.
|
| I made the wrong decisions several times. I lacked focus in
| and after university that cost me several years in my
| twenties. As soon as I made a plan to change things, the plan
| worked. When a plan goes wrong, you evaluate and make a new
| plan. Every idea doesn't always work - you just need one that
| does.
| nitrogen wrote:
| _someone I knew at the company_
|
| Sounds fortunate. This is one aspect where I too have been
| "lucky" in the past, but you have to be both lucky and
| good.
| grumple wrote:
| I think the key is looking at the opportunities that you
| have, whatever they may be, and putting in the work to
| take advantage of them. I have hundreds of friends who
| are relatively poor and who have many opportunities they
| don't take. For example, I've offered to give free
| guidance or instruction to many, but it turns out most
| people don't want to take advantage of that. I told
| people I could hire them (into the very same role I first
| had), but they didn't recognize the opportunity. People
| want easy, so they ignore opportunities like this in
| their lives.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Definitely agree that it's frustrating to offer to teach
| someone to code or something, and they act like "Who the
| F are you to think you can teach me?" or "Nah, seems
| boring" but then they turn around and resent you for your
| success.
|
| Some of the advice I wish friends would take is this:
| accept help wherever you can get it, as long as it won't
| distort your relationship or create an untenable
| dependency.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I didn't have it as hard as the parent, but I remember
| choosing between bus fare and meals quite a few times. My
| first paycheck was spent on white bread and a tube of
| sausage, and now I live a pretty comfortable life.
|
| Most everyone in my orbit has improved their situation too.
| Sometimes that was with help from a family member, but
| generally things have gotten better for friends who were in
| the same circumstances I was.
|
| The two exceptions are those who got into drugs and never got
| out (a few folks I know seemed to never have issues, but
| they're the exception and not the rule) and a single friend
| who has some non-drug problems that probably need counseling
| work.
| andromeduck wrote:
| This is my experience too - almost everyone who hung out
| with me in the library, computer lab or metal shop seemed
| to do fairly well for themselves - not like 200k tech job
| well but like 80k blue collar or white collar when most of
| us grew up with less than 40k combined household income.
| Half of us first or second generation immigrants and
| refugees, lots of broken families, lots of substance abuse,
| lots from Romania, Serbia, Irab, Iraq, China.
|
| IMO it was passion for reading and building things with our
| hands that that seperated our cohort from the rest - that
| and the bond between those of us who knew we hadn't much of
| a safety net to rely on.
| cammikebrown wrote:
| I'm not sure of your age, but for instance, my dad, the
| sole breadwinner at the time, made $40k/year in 1989 when
| I was born, which is equivalent to $84k today. So, making
| $80k now and being raised on $40k/year then are the same
| thing if you adjust for inflation. (Furthermore, I'd
| argue healthcare, college, and housing are much more
| expensive now than they were then.)
| andromeduck wrote:
| I'm 28 now so this was about a decae ago. I personally
| never expected to make much more than 50k out of college,
| 100k by 35 career wise until my first internship. I think
| I can still live quite happily with ~60k by myself or
| ~90k with a loving family.
|
| Good books and good company were all I had and all I
| think I'll ever need - that and the satisfaction of a job
| well done be it a piece of code well written, a field
| well groomed and raked or a McDonalds well wiped and
| scrubbed.
| [deleted]
| sologoub wrote:
| As someone who has experienced pretty rough times (different
| from the OP), but doing just fine myself, of course luck has
| a lot to do with it, but why in the world so many people feel
| so compelled to belittle the accomplishment of OP climbing
| out and then encouraging others to at least hope for the
| same?
|
| I'm pretty sure things would be very different today if I
| didn't have that hope. Don't take the hope from people even
| if it's a long shot.
|
| For all those reading this who are in a bad place financially
| or otherwise - YOU CAN DO IT! Do not listen to nay sayers and
| just do your best (or better yet, do even better - you can
| never really know your own limits/potential unless you try).
| It's not a done deal, but is better than the alternative.
| dahfizz wrote:
| > why in the world so many people feel so compelled to
| belittle the accomplishment of OP climbing out and then
| encouraging others to at least hope for the same?
|
| It is very sad if you ask me. Some people hold the
| worldview that becoming poor and staying poor are things
| entirely outside of one's own control. Success stories
| threaten that worldview, so people admonish those who "made
| it" and remind them that they are nothing but lucky.
| [deleted]
| birdyrooster wrote:
| He said poverty doesn't have a color implying that black
| people aren't impoverished because of systemic racism, but
| because they don't work hard enough. It's racist drivel.
| camelite wrote:
| An interesting social science result is that one (in my
| mind, the primary) result of wokeness is deminished
| empathy for impoverished whites. I took ops comment to
| mean "hey, don't disregard my struggle because i happen
| not to be black", rather than seeing, as you apparently
| have, "racist drivel". A point I'm sure has been made a
| million times, and which you are no doubt impervious to,
| but one that remains valid nonetheless.
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| What does this have to do with black?
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Keep in mind, you're referring to a comment on a message
| board that took _maybe_ 30 minutes to write, and likely
| less, not an op-ed in the NYT. Read more charitably, and
| in context, "poverty doesn't have a color" sounds more
| like "people of any race can end up poor."
| solidasparagus wrote:
| If you read "you can do it" as encouragement to others in
| the same situation, it's a good thing. When you read it as
| a justification for why we shouldn't expand the social net,
| it's pretty terrible. No one is trying to belittle OP's
| accomplishments, but "I did it and you can too" sounds like
| a line from an anti-welfare politician so it shouldn't be
| surprising that many people take issue with it.
| sologoub wrote:
| OPs context does not touch on safety nets at all, so
| where are you getting this from?
|
| Seems like such thinking is a symptom of our current
| political BS. Having experienced some pretty crappy
| times, would you honestly think I'd oppose NOT subjecting
| others to the same misery?! Of course not, no one should
| experience these and everyone deserves basic dignity.
| solidasparagus wrote:
| It's just the social context in the US right now and for
| better or worse, this is often a very US-centric forum.
| "I pulled myself up by my bootstraps and you can too" is
| very strongly associated with the political view that
| people should receive minimal/no help from the
| government. It's a talking point by that side and one
| that is heavily parodied/mocked by the other side. You
| can't use a phrase like that without many people seeing a
| connection - as seen in this comment section.
| sologoub wrote:
| That's a very unfortunate and cruel situation.
|
| For what it's worth, I don't actually know of an
| implemented system that is sufficient in
| preventing/mitigating enough of the poverty. (EDIT: if we
| had basic income, that would probably do it, without
| means testing/etc) US situation is unbelievable in that
| regard - not only do we not have a safety net to speak
| of, our medical care system is a fast track to poverty
| and bankruptcy.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| Agreed. "It can be done" would be a more appropriate
| phrasing, IMO. I dug myself out of worse circumstances
| than OP described, but it took a lot of luck,
| persistence, and a good amount of risk taking to get
| there. I guess it helped that I was at a point where I
| didn't have much to lose, so, risk taking seemed less
| risky than staying where I was.
| syops wrote:
| Thanks for that distinction. This is the right framing
| and clarifies things for me.
| nameequalsmain wrote:
| I don't think the point is to belittle their
| accomplishments, but rather a realistic take on poverty. A
| lot of people try really hard, and still cannot get out of
| poverty.
|
| This is something we as a society need to deal with, and
| not disregard a systematic problem with anecdotal success
| stories and saying "You can too!"
| YinglingLight wrote:
| _It seems to me that luck plays a huge role_
|
| The concept of Talent Stacking:
| https://personalexcellence.co/blog/talent-stack/
|
| Those who accrue and leverage a variety of skills tend to get
| 'lucky'. This is why you could strip most entrepreneurs of
| all their money and assets, and not be surprised to see them
| enjoying success in 5 years. You put into place a system that
| makes making the right decisions inevitable, and learning
| from the wrong decisions.
|
| To believe that your success is out of your hands is
| incredibly disempowering. I understand it's primary function
| is to help you empathize with others, but it subconsciously
| has a hold on you. A very limiting belief, I'd 'yeet' it
| immediately.
| atty wrote:
| Your idea isn't backed up by statistics. The vast majority
| of successful entrepreneurs come from upper-middle class or
| richer families. If it was just about "building a talent
| stack", then the distribution would be relatively flat
| across all family income distributions. You also missed the
| part in the article that described how hard it is as a poor
| person to just find the time and resources necessary to
| learn those skills.
|
| Of course you need to put the work in, but the deck is
| stacked in your favor if your family is very well off (and
| frankly you need to do far less work, due to nepotism and
| everything else), and massively stacked against you if you
| come from a poor family.
| abfan1127 wrote:
| do you have data on this? Are you talking about tech
| entrepreneurs? My understanding is many self made
| millionaires come from the trades (plumbing,
| electricians) starting their own company. I can't find my
| source, thats why I'm interested in your source.
| vmception wrote:
| there is the similar distribution of self starters in all
| areas of society, there is a survivorship bias towards
| upper middle class and upper class people because they
| get to try again over and over and over again. whereas
| someone that "makes it out" has pretty much one chance or
| else they have to pay off all the debt they accrued
| financially or to society for the next 10 years (or
| more). let alone if they get a little lonely and create
| obligations.
| scsilver wrote:
| Remove them from their network and see what happens.
| pbronez wrote:
| Sure, but social capital is an asset you build like
| anything else. Remove a big chunk of anyone's wealth -
| liquid, paper, social, health - and it's gonna be painful
| and disruptive.
|
| The point isn't that they'd be poor if you took away what
| they built... it's that they succeed in building it in
| the first place! That process of building wealth in all
| its forms is the key.
|
| It's not easy. It's definitely not fair. Some people
| start out way ahead. Some people start out way behind and
| don't even have role models to show how it's done. It
| always takes time. My view is that you just have to
| accept people where they are, respect their efforts,
| politely look past their structural (dis)advantages, and
| deal with them as human beings who deserve love and
| support for their own sake.
| scsilver wrote:
| What I find sad is that there is a bunch of low hanging
| investments that improve the "luck" probabilities for all
| people. Well designed built environments, access to
| power/refridgeration/medicine, access to information.
| Obviously there are political barriers to achieving these
| small investments, but the most successful societies will
| these basics into existence, and the groups overall
| quality of life is higher.
|
| I find the developments of cheap solar power + low
| latency satlite internet + digital banking(access to
| stable currencies + inflation hedges + global
| transactions) as essential to deliver the services that
| the most successful and privileged have used, to the
| poverty stricken around the world.
|
| As these people join the fold, do we prepare them
| documentation, do nothing, or set up roadblocks?
| pnutjam wrote:
| I think a big part of it is also the moral choices people
| are willing to make. Most people climb to success because
| they are incredibly talented (rare), incredibly lucky
| (nobody likes to admit it), or because it's always bowb
| your buddy week to them.
|
| Sometimes they are able to do a minor hurt to a vast
| number of people (marketing, some sales, etc...) and they
| don't feel like they are doing anything wrong. Sometimes
| they are just conforming to the standards our society has
| set, (everybody is doing it).
|
| I myself try to do the best, but I've discovered the only
| way to advance is to job hop my way to a decent salary.
| I'm sure this has caused problems for others, but it's
| accepted in this industry. I've seen others who won't job
| hop languish with much lower salaries.
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| Why not go further? Remove their arm, leg, eye. Put them
| at most disadvantage. See if they can succeed!
| beaner wrote:
| If it came down to hundreds of decisions along the way, not
| just one or two, that isn't luck. She's a good decision
| maker.
| craftinator wrote:
| Bad decisions can have good outcomes. People are
| notoriously bad at predicting the future, so really it
| depends on how often you get lucky. I think charisma has
| the greatest effect on this.
| EvilEy3 wrote:
| I would argue if bad decision leads to better outcome
| then it is a good decision.
| beaner wrote:
| This is what people who make bad decisions tell
| themselves.
| chunkyfunky wrote:
| As someone who came from a fairly poor background (not half
| as as bad as the OP to be fair) and who has managed to "break
| out" I can say for sure that looking back I had a ton of
| lucky breaks - but, and this to me is crucial, only _after_ I
| stopped worrying about what might go wrong and focus on what
| I could do right. If I had predicated my success on somehow
| getting lucky I don 't think I would have made it.
|
| So to me - and not wanting to speak for the OP of course -
| but the way I look at this is that the simple encouragement
| of "I made it and you can too" is more motivating than "I
| made it but then again looking back I had a ton of lucky
| coincidences that you probably won't have so, sure, try it,
| but don't expect success" :)
| wwweston wrote:
| Thanks for articulating this. I'd already wondered why I
| both like and dislike "I made it and you can too" and you
| captured it.
|
| It's good for motivation and ... less good for social
| policy.
| jinjin2 wrote:
| > along the way, there were hundreds of decisions made that
| could have gone the wrong way.
|
| And probably and equal amount of decisions that could have
| turned out better.
|
| So rather than being the result of one or two lucky or
| unlucky events, the final outcome is more likely to be the
| average of the quality of all the decisions over time.
| clairity wrote:
| no, it depends on the shape of the modeling function, and
| sociobiological functions are highly complex, possibly
| unknowable, but certainly not a simple linear function
| around which decisions revert to the same mean.
|
| for instance, consider success to be a knowable function
| (like y = a _x^2 + b_ x + c ). luck would be like having
| high (initial) coefficients and constants through no effort
| of your own (e.g., being born into a wealthy, connected
| family). hard work and good decisions might allow you to
| increase (or decrease through neglect/bad decisions) these
| coefficients at the margin, but the relative advantage
| often remains many multiples of the disadvantaged.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| The important part is to focus on the things you can control.
| Luck always plays a role, but your own actions decide how
| prepared you are to capitalize on lucky breaks when they
| arrive.
|
| Luck is important, but it's a mistake to try to attribute the
| success of others purely to luck. Someone winning the lottery
| is lucky. Someone who gets hired because a company noticed
| their quality GitHub commits to a project relevant to their
| needs is also lucky, but their success isn't the result of
| luck alone.
| andromeduck wrote:
| Yeah there's also thousands of potential opportunities like
| that over course of years, each with the potential to open
| new doors. One lucky break does not success make and a
| lucky break without the talent or drive to back it quickly
| collapses.
| estaseuropano wrote:
| Probably nearly everyone can make it. Even the Pakistani kid
| born into intergenerational debt slavery that means he is
| making bricks from when he's 5 years old and has no access to
| school, healthcare or balanced nutrition. It's a difference
| of a 50% chance for the luckiest to 0.00005% chance for the
| least lucky.
|
| But to see the world through the lens 'everyone van make it,
| just put effort and stop worrying' is simply absurd.
| dionidium wrote:
| Of course luck plays a factor in everything everybody does.
| The question isn't whether luck plays a role; it's how much
| salience it deserves. This person made hundreds of good
| choices across decades to achieve the success they have, so
| it seems a bit perverse to focus instead on the hundreds of
| things outside their control.
| jschwartzi wrote:
| luck is just another word for other people.
| II2II wrote:
| Luck was not mentioned to diminish what the person has
| accomplished. It was intended to point out that their story
| may be difficult to replicate.
| dionidium wrote:
| I think this is backwards and the opening lines of Anna
| Karenina get it right. It's "bad luck" that you should
| look out for, but every (moderate [0]) success story
| sounds more or less the same. (Said yet another way,
| success isn't the result of good luck, but it does
| require the avoidance of bad luck.)
|
| [0] _We 're talking about routine success here, not Elon
| Musk. We're talking about avoiding poverty, not going to
| Mars._
| andi999 wrote:
| I also goes the other way. I see people making bad
| decisions which might lead to poverty.
| old_fart_dev wrote:
| Re-read the objected to line:
|
| "I made it and you _can_ too. "
|
| Note that I emphasized "can" in that quote. "Can", not
| "will". This isn't a guarantee by throwaway-0987, it's
| words of encouragement to try.
|
| On a forum that celebrates startup moonshots, I find it
| odd that anyone would piss on the idea that trying is
| worth while.
| KittenInABox wrote:
| I genuinely don't know if even "can" is applicable to
| allpoor people in this context. A person who has a
| similar background but ended up with a chronic illness
| preventing them from working... that dream of working for
| 200k/yr is impossible.
| tobib wrote:
| We're not even talking about "that dream of working for
| 200k/yr" but the dream of living a decent life
| old_fart_dev wrote:
| Do you watch Tasty videos on Facebook with their two
| hands and three ingredients and four steps and think
| "What useless advice - what about people with no hands!
| How dare suggest they can make bakeless chocolate
| brownies!"
|
| I think the "can" is applicable here and can think that
| even while acknowledging there are people who can't
| physically work. I don't want to put words in your mouth,
| so I'll ask: is this the only reason you object to using
| the word "can"? What would be more accurate in your view?
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| I think it's not so much luck, but perseverance. I have a
| similar poor upbringing and I have built a pretty comfortable
| life by never letting myself get too down and always keep
| working towards a better life. Being smart helps, but really
| the best thing that works for me is being okay with failure.
| When you're poor you fail a lot, being able to take that
| failure and learn from it separates the successful and the
| unsuccessful. If you're rich none of this matters because
| life isn't fair.
| newswasboring wrote:
| See you are disregarding all the luck a person had while
| being born in the right side of the world. I would say
| being born in the first world, even if poor, is a huge
| privilege which large parts of the world can't get. You win
| that lottery, and you already have a huge leg up. Now I
| don't want to convert this thread into misery olympics, all
| sadness is valid if felt genuinely and just because you are
| privilege in one sense doesn't mean your life is not
| incredibly hard. But if you think the large amounts of
| generationally poor, even in the first world, lack
| perseverance then you don't understand the game.
| jbluepolarbear wrote:
| I can only pull from my experiences, but I have witnessed
| many in my family and other poor families that only work
| hard enough to get what they need. And very few go beyond
| that and work for what they want. It's hard, exhausting
| work. I regularly slept less than 4 hours because I'd be
| up all night working jobs, projects, anything to get a
| better life. My mom is mixed and my dad is white, I look
| like my mom but with really light skin. Being mostly
| white and not having my moms Arabic name helped get
| interviews and my foot in the door. What some see as luck
| is others using absolutely every advantage they can
| muster to go further than they would be able to
| otherwise.
| andi999 wrote:
| Actually most of the third world has been progressing as
| well (with exceptions of course)
| kungito wrote:
| I think this issue is very important and when I think about
| it I cannot help but think the answer lies all the way down
| in the question whether we have free will. Some people say
| "you have to be perseverant like me and you will make it and
| often time we think about people who have simply cannot be
| perseverant enough but they are good people. Can they be
| better "if they wanted it more" or "if someone helped them"
| and who would that person be? People especially here have
| stories with "I was in a bad situation but I worked hard
| learning coding" while many people were in a similar
| situation but didn't pick up coding as these people did. Are
| they to blame and did the other people pick coding because
| they knew it would launch them to great heights?
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Are they to blame
|
| I think we've become so afraid of giving the impression of
| victim-blaming people who are down on their luck that we're
| afraid to acknowledge that people can and do work their way
| into better life circumstances.
|
| Even if we think of luck as the central determinant of a
| person's success in life, then we still have to acknowledge
| that the person's own choices and actions will pivot their
| destiny around that luck. Licking in to a dream job through
| connections and serendipity doesn't go very far if someone
| decides not to put in the effort required to succeed at the
| job, for example.
| craftinator wrote:
| > if someone decides not to put in the effort required to
| succeed at the job
|
| I read this rhetoric constantly, then I look at a bunch
| of hard working people that I know, who are poor.
|
| Luck is the opportunity to succeed, hard work is the way
| to capitalize on that opportunity. One without the other
| means no success. And on that same note, you can make
| "good decision" that cause you to miss out on amazing
| opportunities, and "bad decisions" that end you up in
| with great opportunities.
|
| I've made plenty of decisions that I thought at the time
| were kinda dumb, but put me in serendipitous situations
| which ended up landing me great jobs. So really, the
| luckier you are, the more chances you'll have to escape
| poverty; if you're willing to work hard at those critical
| times, you'll actually succeed.
| kungito wrote:
| Maybe where you are from but here in eastern Europe you
| can get a cushy job and work at 20% of effort and live an
| upper middle class life just from 1 good connection. Then
| you can work you ass off in college but in the wrong
| industry where there are no "well paid jobs for hard
| working people" around where you are and live a barely
| middle class life. The sad part is people do succeed from
| here by working hard but byoving away to where the job
| is, often half a world away, leaving behind everything,
| friends, family. Did they work hard and "succeed"? Yes,
| but at what cost. Meanwhile lucky people were born at the
| right time in the right family. We should both equalize
| the starting positions and especially make sure your
| lowest low still gives you medical insourance, a place to
| stay and food to eat. At least it's laughable how many
| people in USA don't have proper health care
| [deleted]
| busterarm wrote:
| Fellow former-poor here. It's the kind of thing that casts a
| shadow over your whole life.
|
| And in this industry, nobody is comfortable talking about it.
| Most of the people I work with graduated from school as
| guaranteed millionaires. I hear things get said by people that
| are so far from the orbit of my reality and I cringe.
|
| Reading the article was really eye opening for me because I
| hadn't thought of all of the life skills that I've picked up
| simply as a result of being poor. It even affects how I think
| about my new-found wealth. I spend an enormous amount of money
| on tools and equipment. I'm the one helping all of my friends
| build, move or fix things.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >And in this industry, nobody is comfortable talking about
| it.
|
| If you make the assumption that HN is vaguely representative
| of the software industry and then looking at the reception
| that all the comments that stop short of saying "luck is the
| primary factor of success" are getting it seems pretty
| obvious why nobody talks about it.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| > _And in this industry, nobody is comfortable talking about
| it. Most of the people I work with graduated from school as
| guaranteed millionaires._
|
| This is surprising to me. I'm also a former poor. A lot of
| people I work with in tech come from generally "normal"
| backgrounds. Middle to lower class (in excluding h1b and
| green card holders). It just turned out for them that their
| passion and hobby (computers) ended up being a great career.
|
| Now things are probably different for younger generations now
| that the secret is out about P90 software salaries.
|
| Good thing I got in while they were still taking nobodies.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Ha ha, you and me too. Grew up in a single-parent home
| where mom was a "secretary" (remember that?).
|
| I've been a blue-collar programmer (not _Software Engineer_
| ) my entire career.
|
| I think they're finally on to me though and I may have to
| skip out soon. Code reviews, unit tests and Scrum are not
| my thing anyway. ;-)
| robotnikman wrote:
| Maybe its just the FAANG companies that are hiring only
| those from prestigious universities?
|
| I still hope I can land a decent software engineering
| position someday without such a degree, even if its not at
| a FAANG company and doesnt pay as well
| ryandrake wrote:
| > Good thing I got in while they were still taking
| nobodies.
|
| I feel the same way! I look around at my younger peers with
| such impressive pedigrees: Stanford, Ivy League, PhD's,
| former founders, etc. and I think "wow, I'd never even get
| my foot in the door if I were entering today!
| busterarm wrote:
| Oh I'm not much different than you and the parent either.
|
| I got in before the door closed for sure. I just started
| late so the younger ones are my peers.
| robotnikman wrote:
| As someone who also grew up in a poorer family I can relate
| as well, both the disconnect from people in the industry I've
| talked to and the skills I picked up growing up.
|
| My dad had a bunch of tools growing up which he used to do
| household repairs and repairs on the cars, I remember for the
| longest time my parents driving an old station wagon with a
| lot of duct tape holding things together or covering leaks
| and the air conditioning not working.
|
| I still try to repair things on my own if I can, while some
| people I know just go hire someone on Handy or something to
| fix things for them.
| tasuki wrote:
| I grew up upper middle class, our car had no air
| conditioning, my father was doing car repairs himself. I'm
| from Eastern Europe, a relatively wealthy country compared
| to much of the rest of the world.
| bozzcl wrote:
| > And in this industry, nobody is comfortable talking about
| it.
|
| Man, I remember some of the business courses I took, as well
| as the reports and presentations we did after our
| internships. So many people's thoughts and conclusions read
| basically as "I learned that the poor are people too". This
| was at one of the top universities in my home country. It's
| reasonable to expect these people would be industry leaders
| eventually. The lack of empathy they showed was appalling.
|
| All that being said, I'm glad you got through the challenges
| in your early life. I wish we were more tolerant about
| poorness, because sharing experiences like yours could
| definitely teach and encourage other kids to fight for a
| better quality of life. Having more people with your
| experience in places of power could also help bring a little
| more empathy to society. We need it badly.
| u678u wrote:
| > It's the kind of thing that casts a shadow over your whole
| life.
|
| Shadow really though? I'm super glad everything came through
| my own work, I'd hate if my parents gave me anything. I hate
| spending any money, to me that is just sensible though not a
| problem.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| I'm also very pleased with the results I seem to have
| wrought myself (with help of course), but I always notice
| that I'm a bit behind the curve compared to people getting
| ahead in the workforce, adulting with home refinancing or
| retirement, entering Ivy league direct from high school, or
| in high school, the students that seemed to know which
| classes to take, or what AP was (I took 3 while my peers
| averaged 6-7 AP courses). Same for sports. It's not the end
| of the world, but it's noticeable when you have parents
| that can't help you and while I'm very capable of learning
| all of these things on my own, and I have, I'm no match for
| folks basically speed-leveling early in life.
|
| Also wrt money, I always hated spending it, and _really_
| hated debt /interest. Now I find myself very willing to
| spend money on actually useful things like gear and tools,
| lest the power of money, or my ability to earn it,
| diminishes in the future.
| robotnikman wrote:
| >but it's noticeable when you have parents that can't
| help you and while I'm very capable of learning all of
| these things on my own, and I have, I'm no match for
| folks basically speed-leveling early in life
|
| I definitely feel on this one. I had to learn a lot of
| those things on my own as well
| u678u wrote:
| Yeah I could never afford to do a Masters or PhD where
| those people now seem to be doing extra well.
| sixstringtheory wrote:
| > I spend an enormous amount of money on tools and equipment.
| I'm the one helping all of my friends build, move or fix
| things.
|
| I grew up lower middle class but my dad grew up poor. I think
| a lot of his practices still rubbed off onto me, sounds a lot
| like what you describe.
|
| We have a friend who grew up comfortably and have noticed how
| that influenced their more laissez-faire approach to life.
| E.g. when we help them move, we do most of the work. There's
| a sort of "everything will work out" mentality on their part,
| whereas I'm constantly worrying about how it's all going to
| fall apart.
|
| It's not really good or bad, though. I almost envy the
| carefree attitude. Childhood trauma tends to make people try
| to control things more as adults, and I wish I didn't stress
| things so much. My wife also grew up more "securely" and we
| talk a lot about how it informs our worldview differently.
| Thankfully it doesn't cause problems though, it's just
| interesting. I think we're just different enough to make a
| great team.
|
| And as others mentioned, I value the life skills I gained by
| my upbringing and early start on working for myself. I can
| build and fix things, and cook really well. Gonna be just
| fine, I think.
|
| Happy building, busterarm!
| throwaway846 wrote:
| Similar story I'm now late 30s; father left when i was 2 died
| of aids when I was 6
|
| Mother washed dishes then was unemployed from age 12-now and we
| bounced around her boyfriends houses
|
| My metric (edit: for myself) "have you been poor" is gathering
| extra condiments from a gas station and having mustard on bread
| for a meal. We had food stamps, and a small social security
| check. I always had a bed, and food, but barely and i was aware
| how close we were as we midnight moved at least once.
|
| I got my college degrees through federal grants and employer
| sponsorship; now making north of 200k I reflect on how
| privileged I am to get here. My mother kept me in an upper
| middle class public school system using a po box, I'm a white
| man who loved computers in the 90s. I ended up with a social
| network and a background that looks upper middle class.
|
| I don't subscribe to that "I made it and so can you" I see my
| story as a I had privilege, how can we make privilege into
| equity.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Oh wow, similar for me as well. Mom kept us in the "good
| schools" though by renting the smallest place you could in
| said Good School District.
|
| Also, lots of weekends at public libraries.
|
| (Thanks, mom!)
| LocalH wrote:
| Equity should operate just as much, if not more so, by
| boosting people up than by cutting people down. It should
| also favor the individual and small business over large
| megacorporations.
|
| I fear that the concept of equity presents a real possibility
| of a race to the _bottom_ if we 're not careful to prevent a
| Harrison Bergeron situation. That doesn't mean I think we
| should avoid equity, just that we should be cognizant of the
| potential pitfalls along the way to determining the exact
| implementation.
| bzbarsky wrote:
| This is a very reasonable thing to fear. The concept of
| "uravnilovka" in Russian exists precisely because the
| government tried to do just that in many cases. Making
| everyone the same (in terms of equality of outcomes) is a
| lot easier to do by making all the outcomes bad.
|
| I should note that "equity" need not mean "equality of
| outcomes", but when pressed for how one evaluates "equity"
| far too many proponents fall back to "equality (and
| proportionality) of outcomes" in practice....
| nostromo wrote:
| Your fear is well-founded, that's already what is
| happening. Boston Public Schools, for example, just
| suspended placements in AP courses for all students out of
| equity concerns.
|
| It turns out it's much easier to achieve equity by pushing
| people down (no more AP courses for anyone) than by lifting
| people up (getting more black and latino students into AP
| courses).
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| >just suspended placements in AP courses for all students
| out of equity concerns.
|
| The "ruling" class were angry that the plumbers' kids
| weren't paying a full 4yr of dues to the state colleges
| so now they're making it so you need to go to private
| school if you want to get a head start at college gen-
| eds. And they sold the idea to the masses in the name of
| making all the animals equal.
|
| I'm being cynical. More likely the people responsible
| just don't know or care and pushing everybody down is
| just the easiest way to appease the pro-equity crowd.
| newswasboring wrote:
| > My metric for "have you been poor" is gathering extra
| condiments from a gas station and having mustard on bread for
| a meal.
|
| Do you really mean that or is that hyperbole? Because if you
| really mean that, thats a bit gate keeperish, isn't it? What
| if someone had their own mustard but dinner was still bread
| mustard? Its a ridiculous example, I know, but so is this
| yardstick.
| throwaway846 wrote:
| Metric for myself; not others. I can't pretend to know what
| "line" people have in their mind that gives them anxiety
| around money. (I'll edit for clarity)
|
| It ends up being a discussion point with my wife for lots
| of topics where I'm not picky about the quality of food
| because it's not mustard on bread.
| newswasboring wrote:
| Oh in that case I understand your trauma. But you need to
| understand that it is trauma and not facts of life. I am,
| for the past few years, learning how to be happy. I
| realized that most of my life training has been around
| learning how to survive because that's how it is where I
| was born. And because that's all I knew, I thought that
| was somehow superior. Our media also tries very hard to
| glamorize "struggling", there are no stories about how to
| be happy because it will be laughed out of room. It will
| be counted as either "privileged people being privileged"
| or they will tie it to family/love as the only posed
| answer.
|
| Seriously man, I want to be happy and nobody out there
| wants to tell me how. I am slowly discovering it for
| myself, but I feel like this is a deficiency in our
| media.
| meepmorp wrote:
| >Oh in that case I understand your trauma. But you need
| to understand that it is trauma and not facts of life.
|
| Thank god you now understand their trauma well enough to
| explain how they don't comprehend reality the right way.
| newswasboring wrote:
| I did not comment upon their trauma at all. Just that I
| think it is trauma. I have gone through my share of
| poverty without the first world safety nets. That is what
| I was talking about.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| It's frustrating talking with my friend who needs a new car but
| has no money and bad credit. They have a small windfall to
| afford a $3000 or so car with but they think you can't get
| anything worth driving for less than $15000 and with 100k miles
| or less. Meanwhile I've been driving my $800 Jeep for years and
| it's still running strong nearing 200k miles. They also balk at
| used appliances, furniture etc. Some people get stuck in debt
| forever because of these bad mindsets.
| Bukhmanizer wrote:
| > Anyway, people think I'm 'privileged' now because I earn a
| lot of money, but they have no idea that I used to sleep on the
| floor and eat in soup lines.
|
| > I made it and you can too. Poverty has no color. It impacts
| everyone. You can't tell just by looking at someone.
|
| These two statements are so irritatingly bland and dismissive.
|
| > Anyway, people think I'm 'privileged' now
|
| Yeah, so if people look at you and say "that person probably
| grew up in a nice home with good parents", that _is_ a
| privilege. Boo-hoo, middle-class people accept you and think
| you belong within their social tier. The fact that you 're
| afraid your co-workers will know that you grew up poor is proof
| of how much of a privilege it is.
| Havoc wrote:
| Never been poor, but happened to have a car that was unreliable
| AF. It's anxiety inducing to say the least when every time you
| start it feels like a roll of the dice. Especially when others
| are with you.
| nabusman wrote:
| I would love to understand how this is different in a
| metropolitan in Canada (e.g. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal). Is it
| much better than it is here in the US of A or more of the same?
| flumpcakes wrote:
| I share this sentiment from the author.
|
| I speak "normally", as in to say I don't have a regional accent,
| and have "white collar" jobs working in IT. Many people assume I
| am a good middle class person.
|
| I often get told I am naive, or stupid for saying things like
| "rent prices are too expensive" and that when the median income
| people cannot afford the median priced house we're just growing
| another bubble.
|
| I had a playstation 1 and the original xbox as a child/teenager.
| That sounds like I must have been lucky/middle class and not
| poor? Surely!
|
| All of my adult friends didn't know me as a child. My mother left
| when I wasn an infant and since then until his death my father
| never worked another day in his life. We lived off approximately
| PS100 ($150?) a week for a family of three while my sister was
| sent to live with a relative.
|
| There was also summers where I ate only bread and jam, cooked on
| a portable gas heater, for breakfast, lunch, and dinner 7 days a
| week. Our gas had mostly been shut off and so we couldn't use a
| cooker, or the central heating, and didn't have any money other
| than a few PS for bread & jam. When I was at school I had free
| school lunches. Sometimes there wouldn't be any food for dinner
| when I got home.
|
| I lived below the poverty line until I was 19 and went to
| University. After which I moved to a city and got a job in IT. I
| am the wealthiest I have ever been, but my actual expenses are
| close to nothing: after rent and utility bills my only monthly
| expenses are my phone contract (PS8) and audiable (PS8). I don't
| buy clothes or shoes or any anything really unless there is a
| direct need to (i.e. my shoes have a large hole in them).
|
| Because of my upbringing (the lack of food etc.) I probably have
| an eating disorder, and most of my monthly outgoings is probably
| on takeaway foods. That is still probably a maximum of PS200 a
| month. I probably spend PS100-PS200 a month on normal food
| shopping (milk, bread, cereal, cheese, meat, ready meals,
| chocolate, etc.)
|
| Everything else is shared with my partner out of a joint savings
| account (Netflix, Disney+, Car insurance paid yearly). My partner
| didn't grow up in the level of poverty I did - but now I earn
| twice as much as her she feels poor and "unworthy" compared to
| the amount of money I contribute to our savings.
|
| My father ended up with MS and killed himself a year ago. He was
| living on disability allowance so his income was probably the
| highest he had ever lived on, but is equivalent to minimum wage.
| He killed himself when the current conservative government (UK)
| were following through with their disability reassements which
| meant his income would have dropped by hundreds of pounds a
| month.
|
| I don't want to derail the conversation, but I do get frustrated
| when people call out my "white male IT privledgedness". I think I
| have more in common with any marginalised group than I do with
| the "normal white middle class" everyone assumes I am.
|
| I currently have saved about PS30,000 to go towards my first
| flat. This money has been saved by myself and my partner only.
| This will be the first property ever owned in my immediate
| family. (I was the second to go to university, after my sister a
| few years ahead of me.) I will not/have not inhereited anything
| from any of my family.
|
| My brother, who had the exact same upbringing as me and is
| approximately one year younger than me currently rents a room
| from a family for PS400 a month and works full time at McDonalds
| "flipping burgers". His future prospects aren't high. Breaking
| the cycle of poverty is a hard thing.
| avenger123 wrote:
| Thank you for sharing this.
| borishn wrote:
| "Many people assume I am a good middle class person" is what
| many people consider a "privilege".
| airhead969 wrote:
| They don't know the meaning of poor. And, who cares about some
| absolutely privileged, greedy, manipulative idiots who "can't
| live" on $200k/yr and take from people who make way less than
| them. Shame on them!
|
| ---
|
| If you can count your money, you're poor.
|
| If you can count your money and it fits in your pockets, you're
| very poor.
|
| If you can count your money and it fits in your left pocket with
| room to spare, you're extremely poor.
|
| If you're wondering whether to buy food or gas with the money you
| have left, you're broke.
|
| If you wish you could buy food or gas, you're absolutely
| destitute.
| txdv wrote:
| Saw a documentary in which social strata is classified by the
| means of transportation you are able to afford.
|
| The first level is not a car, but shoes. Then comes a bicycle.
| Then comes a motorized bicycle. Then comes a car.
|
| Not having gas for your car is just the beginning of the abyss.
| fastball wrote:
| How much money can you fit in your pockets if they're
| Benjamins?
| skohan wrote:
| I always thought of "broke" as the transitory status of not
| having money, while "poor" is a socioeconomic status.
|
| I.e. a university student could be too broke to buy beer before
| their next stipend comes in, but that doesn't make them poor if
| they can still go home and drive mom & dad's Tesla on the
| weekend.
| irjustin wrote:
| Context changes the meaning as you rightfully point out.
|
| Being a broke college student and being a broke adult are
| wildly different in almost every respect.
| fastball wrote:
| Not really. You could be pulling down $500k a year but have
| such a high spend rate that you frequently run out of money
| before your next paycheck.
| skohan wrote:
| I think the definition still holds up fine. The main
| difference between being a broke adult vs a broke college
| student is that being broke as an adult is almost always
| because you're poor.
| airhead969 wrote:
| I think of those words interchangeably. "Poor" is also
| ambiguous, i.e., "the poor" (economic class status) and "are
| poor" (having little money, orthogonal to any time period).
| Examples: "My grandparents grew-up poor, but became middle-
| class." and "Alms for the poor."
|
| And, there are only so many relative modifiers, so one has to
| use synonyms to make a point. ;)
| skohan wrote:
| I still think the meanings are distinct. For instance, you
| could say: "I can't get a home loan because I'm poor", "I
| qualify for food stamps because I am poor", but attributing
| these things to being broke sounds a bit funny. By the same
| token, you wouldn't say "My grandparents grew up broke, but
| became middle-class"
| data_ders wrote:
| The car talk resonated with me. I'm always irked to hear someone
| bragging about their Volvo that's lasted them 20 years or
| whatever. To me, there's nothing to be proud of, you bought a
| luxury car and likely had it maintained by a trained mechanic
| regularly.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| As a former used-car flipper I call it the "4Runner vs Grand
| Caravan" effect. And I mostly call it that because it gets
| under the skin of certain people.
|
| The 4Runner starts its life in the hands of someone who can
| afford whatever maintenance is needs, whenever it needs it.
|
| The Grand Caravan starts its life in the hands of someone who
| needs the cheapest minivan and can barely afford it let alone
| afford following the maintenance schedule in the manual.
|
| The 4Runner will haul two kids and occasionally a youth soccer
| team.
|
| The Grand Caravan will haul five kids and occasionally 1800lb
| of paver bricks.
|
| The 4Runner will be towed behind a motorhome.
|
| The Grand Caravan will try and tow a motorhome.
| programmertote wrote:
| > Note: The hostess and her husband were both doctors. They had a
| combined income somewhere upwards of $200,000 a year
|
| I find this a bit puzzling. If the couples are both doctors in
| the US, they certainly are making much more than $200K/year. The
| median salary of a generic doctor (internal medicine) in the US
| is ~$250K. I really wonder where this couple doctor is practicing
| at.
|
| Other than that, I agree with the whole post. I came from a
| lower-middle class family (my dad died when I was 12; my widowed
| mom worked very hard and earned as much side income as possible--
| I remember having to send baked goods to nearby stores for my mom
| before going to school at 8am--to give me and my siblings as good
| an education as one can reasonably get in our third world
| country). Even to this day, I don't own a car. I live by
| $600/month budget for food, entertainment and other necessities.
| I am always saving and investing at least 50% of my income in
| case I become poor again.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| This is an awesome write-up.
|
| I am not rich. I have never been rich, and it's likely that I
| never will be, but this:
|
| _> At the same time, I'm mostly happy. I have a wonderful wife
| who is very satisfying to be near, two kids who are about as
| custom-fit to my personality as possible, and dozens of friends
| online and off who would take a bullet for me, and vice versa._
|
| describes my life pretty well.
|
| I have lived low on the hog for almost my entire life, and that
| allowed me to save up enough, so that I can live in a fashion
| that is comfortable to me, while I do the kind of work I love
| (the kind that could make other people millions, but not so much
| for me). I just love doing this stuff. I'm living the dream
| (which I once described as "My dream is to one day, work for
| free").
|
| I also grew up overseas (mostly Africa), and know what _real_
| poverty is like. It has had a _huge_ effect on my outlook.
|
| And, for my entire adult life, I have worked intimately with
| people that are on the shit end of the stick. I am constantly
| hearing (and seeing) what living rough is like.
|
| Helps me to stay grateful.
| offtop5 wrote:
| The part about cars is pretty spot on, I'm upper middle class and
| I've been able to save so much money by getting rid of my car. On
| the low end you're going to hit 300 to 500 dollars a month for
| the privilege of driving.
|
| The problem here is America simply isn't built for public
| transit. But since cars are a status symbol, people still go down
| to Toyota, or Honda and as long as they can make that first down
| payment they get to drive a new car. I was talking to a rather
| brash car salesman and he laughed about how he can tell who's
| going to get their car repoed.
|
| Cars are the single biggest reason why so many people can't get
| ahead. You also have a gargantuan maze of cascading consequences
| when you really can't afford a car. You don't have insurance
| because you can't afford it, you get in an accident and lose your
| license. As the article states that doesn't stop you from needing
| to drive. Then you get pulled over and risk getting arrested.
|
| I'm very lucky in that I don't need to drive a car, even when you
| can afford one driving to work every day can be a truly hellish
| experience.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> I'm upper middle class and I've been able to save so much
| money by getting rid of my car.
|
| Because you probably have job at a desk with a computer. You
| don't physically do much and so your per-minute presence at
| work isn't mandatory. If you are a few minutes late the world
| is not going to end and your workday rarely starts before 5am.
| You can handle the ins and outs of public transportation and/or
| you can afford to live close enough to walk/bike. I have a job
| that, while it pays well enough I have to be physically present
| (military, long story). While I am paid well enough I will get
| into real trouble if I am not on time every day. Sometimes I'm
| on call and have to get to work within 30-minutes of receiving
| a phonecall. I'd like to ditch the car, but I don't see any
| other reliable 24/7/365 transpiration options. Some of the
| people who work under me, and earn considerably less, are
| lobbying for "have own car" and "have own cellphone" to be
| listed work requirements. That might make at least some
| associated costs tax deductible.
| offtop5 wrote:
| Actually in my area public transportation is more reliable
| than driving.
|
| Nothing like being able to play video games during your
| commute
| sandworm101 wrote:
| The video game thing is interesting. If we one day get
| truly autodrive cars, would a long commute matter as much?
| If I can literally sleep as the computer does the driving I
| probably wouldn't care so much about a longer commute.
| offtop5 wrote:
| Wear and tear on the car would be an issue, even if you
| presume Tesla's can effectively drive themselves for
| free, Tesla still break down. I don't think I'd be okay
| with anything over an hour each way
| gibspaulding wrote:
| I'm really curious to see what the longevity of future
| electric cars ends up looking like. In theory electric
| motors should be able to last way longer than an ICE, and
| most other wear parts (suspension, breaks, etc) should be
| straight forward to replace.
|
| The big question would be batteries, and in the case of
| Tesla at least right to repair issues.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> In theory electric motors should be able to last way
| longer than an ICE
|
| Except that it is very rare for a car to be scrapped
| because of its engine. IC engines are mature tech. They
| last forever, longer than the body of the car. Extending
| the life of the engine further won't extend the life of
| the vehicle. And for such calculations one must include
| the battery packs. I think it safe to say that while
| electric motors might marginally outlast IC engines, I
| don't think that batteries will every have a functional
| lifespan longer than a gas tank (many decades, maybe even
| a century.)
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Exactly. Cars get scrapped because the part costs $W, you
| can't run a compliant business for less than $X, the tech
| needs to be paid $Y, the service manual subscriptions
| cost $Z and they all add up to a number greater than what
| a 2002 Cavalier is worth.
|
| An under the table side gig mechanic can perform many
| more jobs in an economically viable manner because the
| fixed costs are so much less.
| acdha wrote:
| This might narrowly be true if your definition of engine
| excludes other ICE-only components like the transmission
| or radiator (which is technically correct in specialist
| discussion but not general usage). The most common non-
| crash explanation I've heard people cite for turning cars
| into write-offs with is a blown head gasket, so I'm not
| sure about your thesis in general, and it's certainly not
| something an electric car owner needs to worry about
| along with a slew of other cost/complexity increases
| specific to ICEs.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> a blown head gasket
|
| That's a one/two-hour job, a thousand dollars at most. I
| don't think they are selling the car because the engine
| is bad rather that the car is now worth more in parts
| than as a complete object. The engine isn't dead, just in
| need of repair. This happens to electric drivetrains too.
| Windings break. Bolts shear. Bearings fail. And many/most
| electric cars (tesla) still have transmission-type things
| between their motors and wheels.
| acdha wrote:
| 1-2 hours if it doesn't cause heat damage - maybe my
| relatives have been unlucky but a couple had warping from
| explosive failures.
|
| (Disclaimer: I'm a software guy, might be misremembering
| - the key point was that basically all of the times I've
| heard someone mention involuntarily getting rid of a car
| it was either an accident or something which does not
| affect BEVs.)
| tangjurine wrote:
| What about a motorcycle? Cheaper and insurance not required.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> ... insurance not required.
|
| Where exactly is insurance not required for a motorcycle?
| Or do you mean moped? And it was -12c with two inches of
| snow on my car this morning. Anything on two wheels would
| be lethal. Good luck even riding a bicycle with two inches
| of new snow over a season's worth of compact ice.
| tangjurine wrote:
| I thought for my state there was no need for insurance,
| but turns out in 2019 they started requiring it. Seattle
| rarely gets snow so I didn't think about weather
| conditions.
|
| I think a motorcycle couldn't work for your case, but
| some sort of one or two person on road / off road vehicle
| would still be cheaper than buying a car.
| PenguinCoder wrote:
| Motorcycle can't carry kids (in the US) safely, or other
| needs like groceries. And yes, insurance is still required.
| lovegoblin wrote:
| I prefer to keep my insides on the inside.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Also, you can use special lanes and in California lane
| split. If you're willing to take on the risk, and live in a
| sunny place, motorcycles can compete with public transport
| in cost.
| offtop5 wrote:
| I don't have much confidence in most people being able to
| drive a car. While motorcycles do look really cool, it's
| just not something most people can safely do
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| The proliferation of moped-like vehicles that exist right
| below the "everything beyond here is legally a motorcycle
| and the state makes you obtain an extra license and
| insure it like a car thereby providing a massive dis-
| incentive to not just get a car" line seems to indicate
| plenty of people are fine with the risks.
| acdha wrote:
| Fine might not be the right term: there definitely are
| people okay with the risk, especially given how much
| faster they'll get to their destination, but given how
| much more expensive cars are there's also a financial
| push to take a possible risk over certain financial
| stress.
| acdha wrote:
| I think the rest of their post after the part you quoted
| agrees with your point. So much of the US was designed or
| redesigned to only work for people who own cars but we still
| love to talk about them as if they were voluntary expenses
| ignoring the number of people who are one breakdown or
| accident away from unemployment & lack of access to
| healthcare.
| nitrogen wrote:
| What city has public transit that will get you safely and
| quickly to work at 3AM? What city design will still
| accomplish all that after your job relocates 15 miles
| further away?
| acdha wrote:
| That was kind of my point: switching to suburban living,
| heavily subsidizing roads and parking but not having
| effective transit (or only having it for, say, tourists
| and sports venues rather than something a commuter could
| rely on), etc. are all choices which were repeatedly made
| by planners. We can make other choices and, especially
| now, climate change is likely to force us to consider at
| least some of them since even an electric car has a
| significant lifetime carbon emission contribution
| disadvantage due to the inherent spatial inefficiency of
| the medium.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| I used to take public transportation that took 2 hours each way
| to get to my job. Then I bought my first car for $500. It was
| such great freedom.
|
| Then, years later, I moved to the city and was able to get rid
| of my car. It was great freedom.
|
| Then, years later, I got married and had a child. We bought and
| owned two cars. It was great freedom.
| objektif wrote:
| I can kind of relate to it however in my opinion being able
| to solely rely on public transportation in the city is still
| the best kind of freedom.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > On the low end you're going to hit 300 to 500 dollars a month
| for the privilege of driving.
|
| How is maintaining a car costing you so much?
| buescher wrote:
| Add the numbers up and it's pretty hard to get TCO on a car
| driven 15,000 miles/year in the US much below about
| $3500/year, even if you do as much work as possible yourself,
| buy junkyard parts, etc. If you're capable of getting that
| number down very much, you're probably capable of making
| enough money that you don't have to.
|
| TCO on a decent and highly reliable new compact, for
| comparison, is about $5000-$6000/year. (Check Edmunds) At
| $400-$500/month in TCO you should have _no_ car worries. But
| if you don 't have that extra $100+/month, or can't get into
| a new or certified used car for whatever reason, that does
| you no good.
|
| Having been raised to be frugal, and having been broke, I
| totally sympathize with the car trouble thing. That said, a
| lot of people make irrational decisions about cars, and that
| can include trying to be frugal.
| kingnothing wrote:
| $100 / month on gas, $200 / month for a car payment, $100 /
| month for insurance. That's not even accounting for
| maintenance.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| $1200 a year insurance? Seems a huge amount! Is this one of
| those things where it's for some reason more expensive for
| poor people?
| kingnothing wrote:
| Say it's half that or you drive uninsured. A car is still
| a big expense.
| bobitsaboy wrote:
| You think $100/mo for car insurance is expensive? The
| average car insurance rate is apparently $133, but I
| personally know it's not very hard to hit more than $100
| (even on an older model car) if you want more than
| liability.
|
| https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/insurance/car-insurance-
| basi...
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > You think $100/mo for car insurance is expensive?
|
| Definitely! Mine is $500/year for full coverage in the
| UK.
| bobitsaboy wrote:
| I'm nearly 40 and have been driving for decades. I
| recently downgraded to liability and it's still $55/mo
| for myself and my similarly aged significant other.
| buescher wrote:
| It's more expensive for people who haven't been
| continuously insured, who have had accidents, or who
| otherwise have a poor driving record. That's a larger
| fraction of poor people than it is of not-poor people, so
| yes, typically insurance is more expensive for poor
| people.
| gkop wrote:
| In my experience in the US, the cost of even essential
| coverage varies dramatically by zip code. For example,
| when I moved 1 mile from Cleveland Heights to Piedmont
| Ave in Oakland, CA, my rates went down by more than 20%.
|
| So yea, significantly more expensive for poor people.
| offtop5 wrote:
| Gas and insurance alone can easily hit 300 of you drive
| enough. Say you keep it at 200, 100$ a month to fix minor
| things isn't unreasonable. But that assumes you bought a car
| cash, from my experience people tend to finance cars just
| because they can't get three or four thousand dollars
| together at one time. Then you're paying $400 a month
| buescher wrote:
| Middle class perspective: if you can buy a car for cash,
| but you can get a good interest rate on a loan, you may be
| better off taking the loan. The opportunity cost of having
| cash sunk into the car can be greater than your financing
| costs.
| offtop5 wrote:
| The problem is most people buy more car than they can
| afford when they finance it. If I have to save $10,000,
| and I have it in my mind that I don't buy things on
| credit, I'm only going to buy a $10,000 car. But if I
| have $1,000 for a down payment and the car dealership
| talks me into a $30,000 car with zero down, I might take
| that deal.
| buescher wrote:
| True, but a complementary problem is that your $10000
| used car is probably overpriced, driven up by the demand
| for lower-cost-up-front cars. Edmunds' 5-year TCO on a
| 2015 Corolla is only about $20/month less than that of a
| 2021 Corolla. There have been years where their estimate
| was for slightly higher TCO on the five-year-old car.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| A basic, simple loan like this also is often good for
| your credit record.
| throwaway99997 wrote:
| Unless your credit score is absolutely perfect, the APR
| on a used car loan is easily 8-10%
|
| That's a pretty big chunk of change to spend to boost
| your credit record
|
| https://www.bankrate.com/loans/auto-loans/rates/
| buescher wrote:
| Yeah, that's another way it costs to be poor. But you can
| read that page as "a new car loan can be as low as 4.2%,
| even if you only have fair-to-good credit".
|
| It can still make sense to hang on to the cash if you
| don't otherwise have a cash reserve.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Right I was thinking about new car loans which I've seen
| at zero, which is why it makes sense to work the money
| somewhere else.
| Mc_Big_G wrote:
| I've been "counting couch change for food" poor and "maybe I can
| retire early" rich and the thing that strikes me the most about
| both is how many facets of society are geared to punish the poor.
|
| Your car broke down on the side of the road and you needed a week
| to get the money to fix it? Now you have a fine and an exorbitant
| ransom on your vehicle from a towing company.
|
| Your employer made a mistake with your paycheck and it didn't
| arrive on time? Cool, now you have an overdraft fee, a bounced
| check fee and late fees for every monthly payment that hit at the
| wrong time. There goes your paycheck.
|
| You need a loan for a car to get to work? No problem, you'll just
| need to pay 21% interest and insane late fees if you miss a
| payment.
|
| You need to buy boots for work? Payless has $10 boots but they'll
| only last a few months, so you can rebuy them 5 times a year or
| maybe just destroy your feet instead.
|
| Meanwhile, my insurance company will tow my car for free, I have
| a buffer in the bank such that nothing could possibly bounce and
| even if it did they would forgive me, I have a 5 year, zero
| interest rate loan on my car, points back on credit cards for
| buying things I'd buy anyway, free money for getting a new credit
| card or bank account, etc...
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| I grew up poorish. Father made less than 100 dollars a week for a
| good chunk of my childhood. However we lived in a low cost of
| living area and it was relatively safe. My parents were, and
| still are, cheap despite making much more money now.
|
| They did an incredible job not letting us realize we were poor. I
| thought we were upper middle class until I was in high school.
| Raising a family while poor is hard. I can't even imagine the
| life I would have had if I grew up in a higher cost of living or
| more dangerous place.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| I think this article was well written but stopped just short of
| where it needed to be in a few places.
|
| >If you came from a family that did pretty well financially, went
| to college and then immediately started to do pretty well
| yourself, it's hard to get any kind of context for what life is
| like at lower income levels.
|
| I would have gone further and said most of the advice given about
| any topic people who haven't lived it is crap and shouldn't be
| listened do. Some yuppie with an engineering job has zero useful
| advice when it comes to telling a forklift driver how to get
| ahead. Someone who manages a $100 restaurant in downtown NYC is
| going to have little useful advice for a truck-stop diner owner.
|
| > is that it's usually assumed that the quality of things has a
| pretty linear association to the price.
|
| They assume it because they have enough money to insulate them
| from having any good reason to tell the difference. How often
| have you heard something like "I've only replaced the gears in my
| Kithenaid mixer 3x and the frame on my Tacoma 4x" and then the
| people saying it turn around and defend those things as worth the
| price premium as though doing so isn't lunacy with a side of
| stockholm syndrome. At a certain point you can afford to get
| ripped off. It's like a form of conspicuous consumption where
| instead of being overt you pretend to be hapless.
|
| >That's the drop-off you experience at the lower price levels -
| there's nothing between "This is a tiny but acceptable apartment"
| and "Slum apartments in stab-ville".
|
| Author neglects to mention that through personal behavior you can
| largely avoid being affected by the worst parts of stabville and
| that when you know you can do so at little cost the extra $300/mo
| for "peace of mind" is kind of hard to justify and you need to
| use "but kids" type logic to do so.
|
| >I am always consistently shocked by how little people living at
| a decent-to-great income level fear their cars... (I'm not gonna
| bother quoting the full paragraph)
|
| The author should have rounded out this paragraph with
| "eventually you accrue enough tools and experience you don't need
| to worry about anything anymore because you understand the
| mechanical state of your car" and a lecture about how a car's
| utility lets you save money. Try buying used appliances or
| furniture CL with a bus pass. It just doesn't work. If it's a
| legitimately good deal you couldn't get it in the time it takes
| to arrange a rental.
|
| >I think this is a fairly accurate way to look at pay, but it
| applies to other aspects of the job. If you got sick more
| often....(once again, not gonna quote the whole thing).
|
| This is very much a two way street. If you're the guy on your
| shift who saves the line manager a whole lot of pain in the butt
| (e.g. transportation arrangements make it trivial for you to show
| up early as needed) they're gonna wink and nod and let you get
| away with some off the books allowances because they know that
| you can get another McJob elsewhere just as easily as they can
| replace you and that your replacement likely won't have whatever
| value-add you do.
| [deleted]
| lisper wrote:
| There is a huge survivorship bias in people's theories of what it
| takes to succeed economically. Working hard improves your odds,
| but it is neither necessary nor sufficient for success. Luck
| plays a huge role, starting with who your parents are.
|
| Nonetheless, the ranks of the successful are chock-full of people
| who worked hard and who think that they can draw a straight line
| between their hard work and their success, and that if they can
| do it, so can anyone. If you are such a person, I urge you to
| read this:
|
| https://blog.rongarret.info/2009/10/travelogue-beauty-and-de...
| dalbasal wrote:
| His point on housing is _so_ important, and its adjacent to a lot
| of other poverty-related issues.
|
| It's one of the reasons advocates for the poor often seem to
| speak a different language to their opposition.
|
| If you live in median-and-above-land, you think of all costs
| existing on a spectrum. Fancy dinners for $100 on one end. Rice
| and beans for pennies at the other. This is true for clothes,
| smartphones, furniture... lots of things. There's a spectrum with
| options all along it.
|
| It is not true for housing, transport and a lot of other,
| unavoidable expenses. Housing is the extreme example. Say an
| average smartphone is $350. $700 buys a luxury phone. $175 gets
| you an decent phone. Say median rent is $1500. Going above $3k
| will get you a palace and $750 probably doesn't get you anything.
| Quality, below median prices is on an _extremely_ steep curve.
|
| Household economics are just completely different below and above
| a certain threshold... and this has gotten more pronounced over
| the last generation or two.
|
| Ireland has/had a whole literary genre of stories about miserable
| poverty-stricken childhoods. They paint a very vivid picture. If
| you compare it to poverty today, besides being less harsh, it's
| quite different. They had housing. It was basic, often insecure,
| but they did have housing.
|
| Food was scarce. That's no longer the case. Stuff though... they
| had no stuff. No bed, no mugs, no shoes, no pencils. Getting
| these things was an epic mission and served as a landmark. That
| is all changed now. Stuff is extremely abundant. Basics like
| housing and transport are almost as scarce as they were in the
| bad old days.
|
| The upshot of all this is that we underestimate how poor poor is.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Healthcare and housing are two things that seem to crush those
| in poverty (with transportation being a distant, but important,
| third. On one hand you can keep a job with no house, but can't
| with no transportation; on the other hand, cars have gotten
| cheaper and more reliable pretty steadily over my lifetime).
|
| A lot of families are a single injury to a _non earner_ away
| from being bankrupt. Obviously an injury to an earner can be
| even worse. As TFA points out you can live in terrible
| conditions and maybe be a bit more financially stable, or you
| can live in passable conditions and be constantly short on
| money. Either way you are just trading one type of stress for
| another.
| dalbasal wrote:
| Maybe in the states this is true about transport. Here in
| ireland I would guesstimate the difference between entry
| level (personal car) ownership costs and upper-middle class
| car ownership at 1/1.5... maybe even less... maybe even
| negative.
|
| Fuel costs, registration and insurance costs are, I'd wager,
| negatively correlated with wealth and much higher here than
| the states. Driving an older car can cost EUR100-EUR200 more
| per month than a new one.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| 1. Fuel and registration vary from state-to-state, but can
| be so cheap in the US that the purchase/repair/maintenance
| costs dominate.
|
| 2. As TFA states, many poor people have either liability
| only, or no insurance. The latter is illegal in most
| states, but "break the law or starve" has a fairly
| universal result of breaking the law.
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| I thought about this too when I was reading Crime and
| Punishment recently. The protagonist is described as very poor,
| but they still have a room in a house, and their room even
| includes house meals. Similarly with other poor characters;
| sometimes their space was just a sectioned off area of a bigger
| room (maybe like a floor-ceiling cubical). But hey, that's
| gotta be better than sleeping under a freeway for most people.
| bzbarsky wrote:
| The thing is, in the US the "sectioned off area of a bigger
| room" model of housing has been legislated and regulated out
| of existence. Similar for the other option the very poor
| (read: serfs) had in the Russia of the period Crime and
| Punishment is set in: just build something yourself to the
| best of your ability. The result was not always great, and
| there are all sorts of reasons (starting with fire-spreading
| externalities) for modern building codes, so I'm not
| suggesting it's necessaily desirable or viable to go back to
| where we were in the 19th century regarding housing. But the
| upshot is that building and health codes enforce a minimum
| quality on housing that surely feels unexceptionable to the
| people writing them while at the same time serving to price
| people out of housing.
| danaris wrote:
| > Ireland has/had a whole literary genre of stories about
| miserable poverty-stricken childhoods. They paint a very vivid
| picture. If you compare it to poverty today, besides being less
| harsh, it's quite different. They had housing. It was basic,
| often insecure, but they did have housing. > Food was scarce.
| That's no longer the case. Stuff though... they had no stuff.
| No bed, no mugs, no shoes, no pencils. Getting these things was
| an epic mission and served as a landmark. That is all changed
| now. Stuff is extremely abundant. Basics like housing and
| transport are almost as scarce as they were in the bad old
| days.
|
| And this is a big part of the problem with popular discourse
| about poverty today: for a large percentage of people, that
| picture of poverty that you describe in Ireland is _the_
| picture of what poverty looks like, and anyone whose life doesn
| 't look like that obviously isn't _really_ poor.
|
| This is especially true of the "not having stuff" part. The
| popular image of poverty is of a one-to-three-room house with
| nothing but a sad lumpy mattress on the floor, the children
| dressed in ragged, dirty clothes playing with a stick and some
| rocks. These days, "poverty" all too often looks more like
| someone living out of a car, with a smartphone that's four to
| six years old and one set of nice clothes (because you have to
| have a set to go to job interviews) along with one or two sets
| of ratty ones. Or maybe a too-small apartment (that you can
| barely pay the rent on) with a ten-year-old 40" flatscreen TV
| and an HP desktop that's still limping along for accessing the
| internet.
|
| Too many people today see the TV, the computer, the smartphone,
| and the nice clothes, and just assume that these people aren't
| _really_ poor. Because their idea of what poverty looks like is
| stuck in the 19th (and, to be fair, first half-to-two-thirds of
| the 20th) century.
| criticaljudge wrote:
| Well arguably they are not really poor, compared to those
| cases of poverty in the 19th century.
| Jotra7 wrote:
| Really? And just how useful is that comparison? Compassion,
| maybe you should try it some time.
| hinkley wrote:
| I wonder if the availability of stuff has informed the price
| inflation of housing.
|
| What else do people have in their lives that they can bid up
| with whatever money they have left over from other concerns?
| therealdrag0 wrote:
| It's not just that it's bid up, it's that the govmnt has
| paternalized what sort of housing-should be legal. The
| housing that the poor could get back in the day is now
| illegal because it's "inhumane". There's regulations around
| square footage, fixtures, etc. Of course the "unintended
| consequence" is those people sleep in their cars or
| outside/tents, which is obviously worse than a shitty
| apartment that has a roof and walls. Maybe the closest thing
| to the old way is renting a room on Craig's list.
|
| But limited supply is also a big problem.
| jimbokun wrote:
| Cost Disease:
|
| https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost...
|
| Also add education and health care.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| > Unless you really, really need everything in your house to
| clearly be part of a unified set, you are a sucker if you buy
| furniture new
|
| I'd generally agree but some Ikea stuff is so cheap that it's not
| a big deal. $10 for a nice little table is fine. They also tend
| to have a discount section for returns and minor defects, those
| can be decent deals.
| magnetowasright wrote:
| > Take no guilt from this article - It's informational, not a
| call to arms.
|
| Why isn't it a call to arms? Why should anybody have to live like
| that? I've done it. I was busting my arse to get by. Got out
| basically because of luck. Nobody should live in poverty.
|
| I also find the "has your water been cut off" interesting. Due to
| the safety/health implications, cutting off water is illegal
| where I live. You can be restricted for a few specific reasons,
| but they can't just turn your water off. Jesus. Absolutely
| atrocious that that happens to people. Australia is FAR from
| perfect but at least medical bills don't bankrupt people and
| depriving people of utilities generally isn't allowed.
|
| ...Why isn't this post a call to arms, again?
| bezout wrote:
| There's also a difference in the way people handle money once
| they improve their financial situation. They tend to be cautious,
| and save money instead of spending it. There are exceptions, of
| course.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| I've heard just as many people express the opposite. That
| because they were used to "having extra money to spend" being a
| fleeting thing, they threw caution to the wind and overspent
| after attaining a substantially higher income. That they had
| never learned about saving before (because they didn't
| consistently have extra to save), so it never became a habit.
|
| It'd be interesting to see real data on which outcome is
| actually more common.
| dagw wrote:
| Anecdotally it seems to depend a lot on how they got the
| money. Based purely on people I've known; people who become
| rich after working long hours for 20+ years building up
| company or similar tended to be very frugal for the rest of
| their lives despite retiring millionaires. People who
| 'lucked' into a lot of money tended to wildly overspend and
| never achieve financial stability.
| cryptica wrote:
| The hardest part for me was convincing my partner that price is
| not equal to value. It took me a decade of arguments and constant
| proofs to even begin to convince my partner that you can almost
| always find much better value for much less money.
|
| Marketing does such an incredible job at convincing people that
| price and value are the same thing that it takes tremendous
| mental effort for people to acknowledge that it's not like that
| at all. People refuse to acknowledge how powerful advertising is
| at distorting our own perceptions. People think things like "I'm
| not that kind of person to use product x or drive car y or live
| in country z, I'm better than that" - These people are misguided.
|
| Usually you have to move to a different country to get better
| value. You don't want to buy a house in a neighborhood next to
| money launderers who get easy money (you don't want your hard-
| earned money competing on the same playing field as their big
| easy-earned money). You want to buy a house somewhere where
| people work hard for their money. Sometimes these places don't
| have a very good reputation but the reality often has nothing to
| do with the marketing.
|
| People also get caught up in group think. I was saying for years
| that the best value real estate was outside of big cities
| including in the surrounding areas. Nobody agreed with me, I
| often heard arguments like "We don't want to live next to the
| kinds of people who live there." The great irony is that "these
| people" are probably the best kinds when you judge them based on
| their character and personal values. Again, this is due to people
| confusing price with value. They think that people who earn a lot
| of money are better people, smarter people but there is no
| correlation - They are just lucky people with huge egos; in many
| ways they are more primitive. Since the pandemic now all the rich
| suckers suddenly decided all at once that they want to live
| outside the cities... I'm thinking to move even further out.
| DarkWiiPlayer wrote:
| To me everything I see an ad for is automatically tainted
| forever. If I'm not paying attention, I won't even consider
| buying anything I've ever seen on TV because it automatically
| registers as "too expensive". With certain things I've trained
| myself that "I can afford this easily now", but those are
| exceptions.
| fasteddie31003 wrote:
| I've spanned the economic ladder from making $25k, to having
| enough money that I could retire before age 35. It wasn't that
| bad making $25k. I actually moved into my friend's large closet
| for 3 months. Life was more like the show Friends back then. I
| definitely made more stories and friends in that time period too.
| Now on the other side of the spectrum, life is more stressful and
| kinda boring. Maybe that is part of the pandemic's fault. My
| money is tied up in assets that I worry about at night. Part of
| me just wants to liquidate a lot of things and move into a nice
| van and tour the country.
| finnthehuman wrote:
| I've heard that sentiment quite a bit that life is more
| interesting when you're just getting by and I agree with it to
| some extent. There's also an element of aging out of it. I'm
| saving so aggressively that my budget is tighter than when I
| was just starting out and renting a room at a stereotypical
| recent-grad party house, but my life is a lot more quiet and
| boring these days.
|
| I've had a few friends go van life. Some went in head first,
| but you can always buy the van and just use it for
| weekends/holidays to see how deep you want to go.
| ckemere wrote:
| It's really interesting to read this and think about public
| policy. As someone on the left of center axis, I often imagine
| what an efficient government intervention would be. (I suppose a
| more right-wing person might imagine a charity-based solution?
| I'm not sure.) In this case, the author (who clearly is skilled
| as a writer and communicator) indirectly identifies a few "public
| goods" that I think are worth highlighting:
|
| (1) Efficient public transportation that enables commutes on par
| with driving (2) Health and dental care (3) Improved
| policing/security (in the case of the neighborhoods that he
| describes as scary)
|
| What else?
| flumpcakes wrote:
| I think those issues (apart from 3) are directly reflections on
| American society. People don't value better public transport
| and universal healthcare because they are seen as the
| antithesis of the "American dream" and the idea that working
| hard brings you wealth.
|
| Unfortunnately we're not in the 1950s and the uncapped growth
| isn't a thing any more (outside of cryptocurrencies perhaps).
|
| I expect things to probably get worse. It seems everyone is
| concentrating on social awareness like trying to get women and
| black people into more high paying jobs, which is a good thing.
| However this doesn't actually stop the poverty cycle for the
| other millions of people (including the aforementioned groups).
|
| I think it requires reframing what social care and living in a
| society means for meaningful change to happen. I think people
| need to stop seeing wealth as some entrepreneurial thing they
| can mine for themselves. This "spirit" doesn't improve anyone
| else's lives, Apart from the select charities and issues they
| choose to support which aligns with their own social agenda.
|
| I do believe a billionaire shouldn't exist. Or a half a
| billionaire. That kind of wealth doesn't solve any issues for
| real people. A wealth tax on the ultra wealthy to pay something
| towards a healthcare for all (like most western countries have
| already) might help people though.
| fellowniusmonk wrote:
| I started working full time right after I turned 15.
|
| My family had always flirted with extreme poverty. At one point
| all 6 of us lived in a tiny gulfstream on the back property of a
| church for 6 months. We had to carry our waste out in buckets. We
| got kicked out of section 8 housing by the sheriffs department.
| This was while living in a combination of DC, or the VA side.
|
| My mother was diagnosed with cancer (which took her life 7 years
| later) when we didn't have insurance and my dad stopped getting
| out of bed.
|
| Because of pre-existing condition laws at the time she was unable
| to get insurance outside of state medicare.
|
| My very religious parents best option was to divorce so my dad's
| income wouldn't effect her status, they declined.
|
| The summer after I turned 15 I worked my first 40 hour week (over
| a weekend) running networking cable and doing admin for a local
| medical home equipment company. I transitioned from small
| business network admin to SEO and "New Media" and on to become a
| developer.
|
| I paid for rent and food for my family, anything I didn't spend
| on work clothes or essentials was taken by them each month. I
| didn't have a car.
|
| I spent 1 semester in college and couldn't afford it, I couldn't
| afford not to make money and I lived in an active construction
| site, just a mattress on subfloor in a gutted husk. I was born
| with a couple heart defects that cost me thousands each year at a
| minimum, until ACA I could not get personal insurance and had to
| get company insurance.
|
| I have started companies and done well for myself but the lack of
| access to capital, the lack of network opportunities meant I have
| had to scrap far harder than people can understand.
|
| I've had to fake coming from a position of security my whole life
| just to have more leverage in negotiating. I've had to learn to
| code switch in ways people don't understand. I learned this all
| after my first (illegal) W2 job took maximum value from me and
| payed me a third of what my role, responsibility and output would
| have earned as an adult.
|
| People who make it don't appreciate how lucky they had to get,
| people that have parents that aren't a net financial burden can't
| understand what that weight around your neck is like, people are
| far luckier than they appreciate.
|
| Lack of access to capital, having to constantly bootstrap without
| any kind of family or other safety net, having no home to go home
| to is something most people don't understand.
| nickelcitymario wrote:
| I completely relate to this. I was raised in a middle-class
| family. My parents worked their way through school. Our first
| homes were in social housing (or co-ops... I honestly have no
| idea whether they were publicly funded or not). Then a tiny
| apartment. Then a house in a tiny town way up north -- the only
| place they could both find work.
|
| It paid off for them. They retired comfortably. But it took a lot
| of work to get there.
|
| I took every advantage for granted and didn't leverage any of it.
| Didn't go to school, didn't develop my social network. Had kids
| in my early 20s. By the time I realized I was poor (and broke!),
| I was way over my head and working near-minimum-wage jobs. It
| just caught me off guard.
|
| But once my kids showed up, I realized I needed to do better and
| changed things. I'm pushing 40 and have finally reached the point
| where I've cross the income threshold. I'm still not rich, and
| I've got money problems like everyone else, but I'm no longer
| wondering if I can pay my utilities bill. I have a mortgage, not
| rent. I have a reasonably decent vehicle that I can afford to
| take to a mechanic twice a year for basic maintenance.
|
| And the result is that life is WAY less stressful. I rarely worry
| about the basic necessities anymore, and instead get to worry
| about the future, like whether my kids will be able to go to
| college. But it was a struggle and a half to get to this point.
| (Even buying a house was only viable because it was cheaper than
| renting a place big enough for my whole family. It required some
| financial ninjutsu to pull off.)
|
| That small house and a Toyota Corolla? Absolutely freaking
| outstanding.
|
| Now I get to complain about things like "I really don't feel like
| going to work today" instead of "I really don't have gas money to
| make it to work today".
|
| TL;DR: I experienced both a lower and middle class childhood,
| then due entirely to my own life choices, experienced both of
| them all over again. I agree with the author. There really is a
| threshold, a tipping point, when it comes to income. Below that
| threshold, it feels like the entire economy is against you. Above
| that threshold, I wouldn't say the economy is working FOR me, but
| I at least feel like I'm a part of it.
| carapace wrote:
| Good luck can cover for bad decision making, but good decision
| making can't cover bad luck. You can mitigate but Murphy will
| have his due.
|
| - - - -
|
| > That's the drop-off you experience at the lower price levels -
| there's nothing between "This is a tiny but acceptable apartment"
| and "Slum apartments in stab-ville".
|
| This is more-or-less by design. It's what keeps people from
| "going native". (Literally, at least in the USA. We wouldn't even
| let the natives go native! Made them put their kids in our
| schools, wear our clothes, style their hair our way, and speak
| only our language. It was pretty fucked up. The open secret is
| that whites who got kidnapped by Indians and lived among them for
| a while tended to like it.[1] As in, they refused to go back to
| town or the farm. I'm not trying to say that the Native
| lifestyles and cultures didn't have problems, I'm saying that
| they had fewer problems than the European newcomers. For example:
| no homelessness. It wasn't until after the Europeans arrived that
| a man or woman in North America could become destitute.)
|
| The give-away is the objection, "But who will pick up the
| garbage?", when one brings up the idea of a post-scarcity Utopia.
|
| If there wasn't the specter of homelessness, we couldn't get
| anyone to haul our trash for us. That's the unstated assumption
| behind that objection. It's pretty ugly: "We need a lower class
| that can be kept in line with the threat of homelessness,
| vagrancy, and prison to supply cheap labor to do the things we
| don't want to do ourselves."
|
| The obvious solution, don't have trash in the first place,
| doesn't get air time.
|
| (But think it through: there is no such thing as trash or waste
| in Nature. The very concept of "trash" is human mental
| construction. There are plastics that biodegrade... etc.)
|
| [1] "An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States",
| Dunbar-Ortiz https://www.zinnedproject.org/materials/indigenous-
| peoples-h...
| fallingfrog wrote:
| The whole car section brings back memories of when I used to
| drive a car with one flat tire, but I would pump it up with a
| foot pump on the way out every morning and it would stay inflated
| just long enough to get to work, then the same on the way back. I
| used to get stressed out waiting at red lights, thinking, that
| air is leaking out..
| aembleton wrote:
| I remember my first car having an oil leak as well as a bunch
| of other problems. During the winter I used to commute, 30 mins
| each way without any oil. It was just about cold enough that it
| could make it.
|
| I didn't get it fixed because I was putting money together to
| buy a newer car that didn't leak. Worked out in the end.
| [deleted]
| nchelluri wrote:
| I read about half of this post and I've paused there. It screams
| to me "Let's have a Universal Basic Income" already.
|
| > And one day your wife calls you and tells you the water is off,
| and there's nothing you can do; maybe some family member can help
| you out, or maybe you live without utilities for a week or so
| until you get paid and start the next pay cycle that much more
| behind.
|
| These are people with children we are talking about. Why can't
| there be simple equity for these beings who are facing their
| demise through no fault of their own? Like seriously, WTF?
|
| I want to support:
|
| - sustainable electronics
|
| - living wages
|
| - right to repair
|
| - removal of slave labor from any supply chain I am involved in
|
| What do I have to do to make this happen?
|
| --
|
| > When I'm trying to explain to my sons how a company decides
| what to pay someone, it usually goes something like this: A
| company is looking to pay a person as little as they can and keep
| them, so a person's pay is determined by how rare their skills
| are and how much demand there is for those skills.
|
| > [...]
|
| > This isn't evil on anyone's part, and you shouldn't feel bad
| about it - I've made a lot of choices in my life that led to this
| point and I have a lot of responsibility in terms of where I find
| myself.
|
| _Yes it is evil._ I'm sure we cannot exist as a fundamentally
| secure, sane, healthy, fair, equitable, respectful, productive,
| diverse, healthy, robust society until this rot is done away with
| once and for all.
| aembleton wrote:
| > What do I have to do to make this happen?
|
| Choose one of those and focus on it. Make a campaign around it,
| create a Facebook group. Study the topic and argue for it and
| finally try and get elected to make a change.
| woofcat wrote:
| >It screams to me "Let's have a Universal Basic Income"
| already.
|
| I don't think people want poor people to exist. However no-one
| has solved the supply side of "Give everyone free money". Every
| time I ask if someone has actually figured out how to do this
| that isn't 3-4 times the current Federal Budget you get a bunch
| of hand waving.
|
| Handing everyone $10,000/year (not even UBI levels) requires
| gathering $10,000/year in either service cuts, or increased
| taxation.
|
| Even if we presume everyone over the poverty line gets $10,000
| added to their taxes to cancel the benefit out. That still
| leaves us with a $10,000 hole for every person under the
| poverty line.
|
| 12.5% of American's live below the poverty line. That's
| 41,025,000 people. Which is an insane number. The $10,000 a
| year would be around $410 billion per year.
|
| So if America eliminated the Military budget, they could pay
| for $10,000 to each person below the poverty line... however
| odds are laying off 70% of the Military would result in more
| people living below the poverty line.
|
| It's possible, however no-one wants to highlight what 410
| billion dollars a year can be cut from a budget, or who wants
| to pay 410 billion dollars a year in extra taxes.. additionally
| that number is based on a _very_ low amount of $10,000. If you
| wanted to hand out top ups to the poverty line in America it
| would cost even more money.
| simonh wrote:
| A while ago I read about a study that surveyed people with
| inherited wealth. IIRC they ranged from having inherited tens to
| hundreds of millions. No matter how much they had inherited, when
| asked how much they would need to have inherited to feel
| financially secure and not have to worry about money, they said
| they would need something like half again to double.
|
| I may be misremembering the details, but that was the gist of it
| but I couldn't find the article again. I suppose expectations
| scale up with means.
|
| On the other hand discovering people they know are actually very
| wealthy seems to have a massive negative effect on people's
| levels of empathy. Wealthy people who have suffered bereavement
| or personal tragedy report people who are less wealthy than
| themselves rarely offer sympathy and they often get comments
| along the lines of 'knowing what it's like for the rest of us
| now', or 'what it's like to have a problem you can't buy your way
| out of'.
| deepstack wrote:
| It is never about how much money you have, rather what
| situation you are in, what you are expecting and what others
| around you have.
| em500 wrote:
| Yes, according to one of my old economics teachers, above the
| subsistence level, happiness is approximately how much better
| off you are than your neighbors.
| skohan wrote:
| If you choose to play that game. In my experience focusing
| on what you need to be happy and ignoring your neighbors is
| a better recipe for happiness and a whole lot cheaper.
| boston_clone wrote:
| A quote about personal happiness that has lived with me
| for some time: "comparison is the thief of joy"
| sethammons wrote:
| Growing up poor and now being more well off than most of
| our community is actually a source of stress for my wife
| and I.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| I wonder how much of that is innate rather than being driven
| by consumerist propaganda though. Do I really want a new car
| because the Jones's next door have one, or because
| advertising makes me feel somehow inadequate because I don't
| have one?
| acdha wrote:
| I think advertising has a role but it's amplifying an
| existing cultural value rather than creating one. A culture
| which conceives of itself as capitalist naturally
| encourages thinking of wealth as your score and at least in
| the U.S. we lack much counter pressure pushing other values
| as equally important. Even things like religions which
| discourage this have been distorted to fit, as anyone who's
| ever seen a prosperity gospel believer try to talk their
| way around the clear meaning of the needle's eye parable
| can attest.
|
| I think this comes back to basic primate social dynamics.
| We evolved tracking our social standing relative to others
| and wealth is pretty easy to compare. Advertising
| exacerbates that tendency but I don't think there's any way
| to get rid of it with standard issue humans.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Yep!
|
| As someone from a former socialist country, I can confirm.
|
| Situation has got a lot better in the last ~30 years, people
| have alot more, but since a few people got even more than
| that, some complain a lot. Average worker family has gone
| from bicicyles and maybe one yugo (or a "fico" - even
| smaller/cheaper) to two, maybe three european-mid-range cars
| + all the modern extras, but are not happy, because their
| neighbor has as 100kEUR mercedes.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| _Comparison is the thief of joy._
|
| Theodore Roosevelt
| chii wrote:
| it makes some evolutionary sense tho - because objective
| wellbeing is only part of the competition. Relative
| wellbeing is what "counts" for real, esp. when competing
| for scarce resources.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Well, this is ok when you work more, to get more for
| yourself...
|
| ...out here, people want their neighbours to have less.
| fogihujy wrote:
| There's a local saying that in Finland, people would prefer
| paying EUR100 to the neighbour getting paid EUR50. I take
| it that's true elsewhere too? :)
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Here it's "let my cow die, just if two of neighbours'
| die"
|
| But yeah... we earn relatively little (compared to you),
| and have better cars than most of the northern europe...
| most of them on long year loans... It's not rare to see
| an (eg.) BMW X7 owner at a gas station pump 9.85eur of
| gas, than slowly fondle the pump handle, because he only
| has 10eur for gas. The neighbors see the car, not the
| amount of gas inside :)
|
| Also a lot of "not in my back yard" behaviour.
| fogihujy wrote:
| It sounds like the basic idea is the same; perceived
| relative status is more important than actual status,
| though the details obviously differ.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > they would need to have inherited to feel financially secure
|
| It seems ridiculous to most of us, but I can see how it
| happens. I grew up pretty poor - my father was a police officer
| and my mother didn't work because she had to watch the four of
| us. But I graduated with a degree in CS in '95 (if you're
| thinking about graduating with a degree in CS, try to do it in
| '95 because that may be the best possible year to do it) and am
| much better off financially now than my family was when I was
| growing up. Still, I keep worrying about my kids: I can pay to
| send them to college, but I can't afford, say Harvard or MIT. I
| have to keep reminding myself that they're far better off than
| I was at that age and I managed to turn out OK - I think part
| of it is that I end up comparing my situation with the people
| around me, many of whom are far better off than I am.
| tangjurine wrote:
| The average software engineer makes around 100k. If you have
| been working for 20+ years, has it been difficult for you to
| save up enough money for college?
| labcomputer wrote:
| I would argue that it's hard to save enough for college at
| _any_ income, due to need-based financial aid (aka perfect
| price discrimination by ogopolists). Most need-based
| systems take into account parents ' income and college
| savings, and children of software engineers in particular
| are going to be near the part of the curve where that
| starts to bite.
|
| I randomly chose Princeton's financial aid calculator
| because it was close to the top of Google. For a family
| with two working parents, two kids (one entering college),
| and $250k in home equity in Illinois (the middle of the
| USA):
|
| * For a $100k/year SWE + a $25k/year something else and no
| college savings the expected family contribution is
| $30k/year
|
| * The same family with $250k saved in a 529 college savings
| plan is $45k/year
|
| * For a $125k/year SWE + a $50k/year something else and no
| college savings the expected contribution is $50k/year
|
| * The same family with $250k saved in a 529 college savings
| plan is $66k/year
|
| * The same family with $450k in home equity is expected to
| pay $75k/year (I guess you're expected to take out a home
| equity loan to pay for college).
|
| * Make the family renters with $50k/year income (30k+20k),
| and their contribution drops to $4.4k/year.
|
| The point is: The more you save, the more you _need_ to
| save. And the more you make, the more you _need_ to make.
|
| That's not to say need-based tuition is bad policy. But, it
| does mean that "surely it's easy to pay for college with
| _your_ level of income " doesn't really come into play
| until you reach the top 1-2% of income.
|
| Everyone below that is going to have their tuition adjusted
| to make the out of pocket cost painful but bearable, and
| the average SWE isn't a 1%-er.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| > save up enough money for college
|
| Depends on the college. MIT says to expect to spend ~
| $70K/year. $100K * 20 years = 2 million. Two kids * 4 years
| = $560K. That's a little over 1/4 (before taxes). So yes,
| it would have been difficult to save up that much money. I
| have enough to send them both to a public in-state school
| debt-free, but not an elite private school.
| Aeolun wrote:
| What in gods name could they be spending $70k a year on?!
| They hire a private teacher for every student?
| ip26 wrote:
| I don't know MIT but my first reaction is that number
| probably does include room & board, which in a college
| town might be $20k a year.
|
| $50k a year in tuition is still not a bargain, of course.
| VLM wrote:
| My kids are getting to college age and its worth
| considering that MIT has 11376 students whereas google
| claims there are 19.6 million college students in the USA
| at this time. So if distributed purely randomly, in the
| "everyone MUST go to college" USA, something like 99.942%
| of kids will not be paying MIT tuition.
|
| Another thing to consider is if you're investing $280K in
| the MIT brand, do they offer any bachelors degrees worth
| $280K other than maybe CS and pre-med?
| hcho wrote:
| Not during at least three quarters of the mentioned period
| and not for every location even today.
| golergka wrote:
| > I suppose expectations scale up with means.
|
| Isn't that social pressure? No matter how much you start with,
| if you end up with less than that, people see you as a failure.
| A person who inherits 10 million dollars and is afraid of going
| down to 1 million isn't as much afraid of selling his yacht as
| he's afraid of what his peers would think of him.
| rrdharan wrote:
| I know it doesn't matter much but just to ground these
| numbers a bit - anyone owning or trying to own a yacht with
| "only" $10M is indeed heading towards $1M very quick.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Upper middle class know-it-alls sneer at the bad financial
| decisions of the guy living in the double wide with a brand
| new corvette in the driveway while the lower middle class
| looks up to his efficiency and prioritization.
|
| A yacht is the same thing with the decimal moved a couple
| places. If your income is fat enough to give you 10m in the
| bank then you can definitely own a yacht so long as you
| don't mind living in the kind of neighborhood where your
| neighbors are plumbers instead of surgeons.
| rrdharan wrote:
| There is a distinction between a yacht (generally > 35
| feet, needs a full crew) and just a boat:
|
| https://www.tessllc.us/whats-the-difference-between-a-
| yacht-...
| leetcrew wrote:
| yes, but only in a rough sense. the ratio of maintenance
| cost to purchase price is much higher for a yacht (or
| really any boat) than for a mass produced car like a
| corvette. if you can afford to buy/finance a corvette,
| you can usually afford to drive it too. the same is not
| true for any boat larger than a canoe. there is a reason
| for the old joke about a boat being merely "a hole in the
| water that you throw money into".
| genedan wrote:
| As I become more wealthy, I have started to tackle problems
| that I never really thought about when I wasn't as well off,
| things that cropped up when I thought I'd finally have peace of
| mind. In retrospect, the insecurity was always there, but I had
| the luxury of ignoring it when I was poorer.
|
| Once I started making enough not to worry about rent, the
| problem was then saving enough for things like retirement,
| setting up tuition funds for the family, etc. Now the problem
| is managing my mix of investments and having a big enough pad
| to insulate myself from the occasional recession. But, I think
| even if my net worth were to triple there isn't really anything
| I can do to avoid a great depression-level economic
| catastrophe. Beyond that, I know not what money problems people
| with eight or nine figure net worths are scared of but I would
| assume if I ever made it that far the anxiety won't go away.
| simonh wrote:
| If you have a reasonable level of wealth invested in a
| diverse range of products you really don't have much to fear
| from a great depression.
|
| A brutal and unfair characteristic of recessions is that the
| pain is very unevenly distributed. I've lived through several
| severe recessions here in the Uk and myself and my family
| were fine because we had comfortable jobs and incomes. Our
| house prices didn't appreciate as much and our wages were
| stagnant for a while, but we were fine. The pain falls on
| people who lose their incomes, lose their investments and
| come out of college with no jobs to chase.
|
| I'm in no way diminishing the real hardship that these events
| cause, it sucks.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Just remember that your anxieties are child's play compared
| to the anxieties of people worrying every day about paying
| for their place to live, food or health care. These worries
| are tally different.
| seneca wrote:
| This kind of dismissive attitude toward peoples' problems
| is unhelpful. Following your line of reasoning, there are
| people with crippling diseases in the world. People
| worrying about a place to live etc should remember that
| their problems are child's play compared to theirs. And
| those people should remember their problems are child's
| play compared to someone being targeted by genocide.
|
| There are nearly 8 billion people in the world. You can
| always find someone worse off, that doesn't mean people are
| undeserving of empathy if they aren't the one single worse
| off human being. This sort of worst-off competition is
| dehumanizing.
| objektif wrote:
| That is really a terrible argument. I am sorry but I am
| not going to feel sorry about you just because you are
| stressed about which crazy expensive private school your
| kids should go to. It is not really a worst-off
| competition it is just that at absolute level of
| suffering your issues are ignorable.
| seneca wrote:
| > it is just that at absolute level of suffering your
| issues are ignorable.
|
| I'm curious, how do you go about establishing that level?
| Do you think it's really absolute, rather than relative
| to the stressors the observer feels? In reality, I think
| that's how most people actually operate. Something
| (extremely roughly) along the lines of: T >= O, where T
| is suffering of the target and O is suffering of the
| observer, results in empathy.
|
| That gets caught up in the fact that suffering is more
| about perception, and is itself relative. So maybe we
| have to say both are level of suffering as perceived by
| the observer.
|
| Something along the lines of "if I perceive you as
| suffering more than I do, I can have empathy for you".
| For what it's worth, I think this gets at the heart of
| the difference between sympathy (largely pity) and
| empathy more generally.
| paxys wrote:
| People out there having bigger problems does not diminish
| your own. To me, getting my children into a good public
| school is a current problem which is giving me anxiety.
| Someone saying "that's not really a problem, at least you
| can afford to feed your kids" doesn't come off as helpful
| or ease my concerns.
|
| Similarly, billions of poor people in developing countries
| would kill to swap places with the poorest American, but
| that doesn't mean the latter has a good life.
| Nemi wrote:
| I once read something that resonated with me (though I
| can't remember where), in essence that everyone has a
| default level of stress and anxiety that they feel (a
| "stress bubble" if you will), and it does not matter so
| much what your particular life situation is, you tend to
| fill up the "bubble" with whatever is going on in your
| life at the time. The idea is that you feel the same
| amount of stress as a teenager with your social issues as
| you do as a successful adult with more than enough money
| to live comfortably.
|
| This really impacted me because I definitely came from a
| poor-ish background where I lived month to month and only
| thought about paying rent and whatnot. I then went to
| community college at 29 to give myself a chance at
| something else and then ended up making well into 6
| figures having worked up to a director of a software
| company (unheard of in my social circle growing up).
|
| At the time that I read this I remember feeling just as
| stressed about work things and family issues as I was
| when I didn't have health care and could barely pay my
| rent. Looking back, I remembered that I would feel just
| the same way about friend issues as a teenager when that
| was my whole world - something I would now scoff at as
| unimportant and incidental. It helped me realize that a
| lot of my stress levels were "baked in" to me - but that
| also meant I could affect my stress levels by being aware
| of my bubble.
|
| Now when I am feeling stress about my financial portfolio
| or my kids getting proper education during the pandemic,
| I make a conscious effort to compare it to the helpless
| feeling I had when I made no money and felt powerless and
| that allows me to shrink my stress bubble. I also
| empathize much more with my kids and when they are
| stressing about something that my adult self realizes is
| not consequential. I remember that this is just them
| "filling their bubble" and to them it is just as
| important as the things I am dealing with. It also makes
| me appreciate those people who have a naturally small
| bubble and realize that that is also often a factor in
| their success (e.g., though I don't know Elon Musk, I can
| imagine that he has a naturally small stress bubble that
| allows him to drive so hard for success).
|
| This is not to criticize you in any way, on the contrary,
| I agree with you 100%. But it is an empowering way of
| looking at your life.
| globular-toast wrote:
| The thing is, humans can't sense a constant velocity, we can
| only sense change. People always want more. Some people get
| addicted to the feeling of more and then a constant velocity
| actually feels like they are losing something. It's even
| possible to get addicted to the second derivative, ie. your
| upgrades getting bigger and more frequent. It's impossible to
| talk to people objectively about how good their life is because
| you just don't know what they are used to.
|
| In all cases people struggle because they've absorbed things
| into their life that they now consider essential. The things
| you own end up owning you.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| This study maybe true. But there are levels of poverty where
| people don't just have a subjective desire to have more money
| but have real hard worries about paying for food, health care
| or a place to live. That's totally different from people
| wanting a nicer car or nicer house and way more psychologically
| stressful.
|
| The lack of empathy for the wealthy goes both ways. The wealthy
| traditionally haven't had much empathy for people with less
| money so it's not too surprising that people with less money
| don't have much empathy for them. It makes me really angry when
| I see multimillionaires in the news warning about the risks
| raising the minimum wage. It's actually pretty sad.
| cafard wrote:
| One thing I learned as a parent is that kids always compare up
| the wealth scale, never down. I'm sure my parents noticed that,
| too.
|
| I've never heard about the negative effect on levels of
| empathy. I suspect that it is unusual for people to have
| friends far poorer or richer, and it is easy to be dismissive
| of the problems of those one does not know.
| brianmcc wrote:
| There's this in The Atlantic:
| https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/12/rich-peop...
|
| _"All the way up the income-wealth spectrum," Norton told me,
| "basically everyone says [they'd need] two or three times as
| much" to be perfectly happy._
|
| It references this study:
| https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=53540
| skohan wrote:
| Maybe it's because I grew up in a frugal household, but I
| have basically never felt like I needed more money since
| properly starting my career.
|
| I mean it helps that I have tended to live in lower COL
| cities, but I have always saved a sufficient portion of my
| income, and I have never had the feeling that I want to buy
| something or travel somewhere and I can't because I can't
| afford it.
|
| I don't fly first class, and I rarely stay in luxury
| accommodation, but those things just don't matter to me,
| especially compared to the freedom of always having extra
| money.
|
| I feel like this is such a relaxing way to live, and I have
| never understood the lifestyle treadmill or conspicuous
| consumption.
| debo_ wrote:
| I've observed that brushes with mortality or ill-health can
| also quickly alter one's perspective. Once one gets the
| perception that there's a threat of being physically unable
| to work for much longer, I think the drive to have an
| increasingly large "safety net" can become very strong.
| symlinkk wrote:
| Or, you'll realize that you could die at any moment, so
| you might as well enjoy your money while you have it.
| sethammons wrote:
| Or you realize you may not die at any moment and find
| yourself too old or infirm to earn enough support
| yourself and you need to not enjoy the money now so you
| might be able to scrape by later.
| debo_ wrote:
| Death is one thing; a long life of fragility is another.
| The latter costs more, and I think can cause some people
| to suddenly look much differently at their wealth.
| leetcrew wrote:
| depends on your goals. I don't worry for myself. I save
| about half of my take-home (and I don't make an SV salary).
| unless the bottom falls out of the software market
| completely, I'll be fine. I do worry for my friends and my
| young cousins who haven't yet found their path in life.
| it's not my responsibility to do so, but I won't have
| "enough" until I can protect them too.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Yeah, I pretty much ignore my bank balance and autopay my
| bills and mortgage and never have to think much about
| money. By the apparent standards of SV techs I'm well below
| the poverty line. I find it difficult to empathize with
| them.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Never having to think about money is an incredibly
| privileged position though. That's true regardless of
| your standard of living.
| simonh wrote:
| Thanks, that's the one. I suspected I was under-shooting the
| multiple.
| brianmcc wrote:
| I remember reading it initially some time ago - and
| visiting it anew I'm surprised how _high_ the multiple is.
| In my head it was "10% - 25% higher".
|
| My personal hunch is too many of us "shoot just too high"
| in terms of what we can afford, be it housing, cars,
| whatever.
|
| Granted there are plenty of disciplined individuals and
| families out there and it's certainly not impossible to
| live within one's means.
|
| But human nature is what it is - why "settle" for a
| $400,000 home when the bank will give you a mortgage for
| $500,000? Why settle for a Ford, VW or Toyota when the car
| finance payment for a BMW or Merc are just a little bit
| higher each month?
|
| There's definitely a status thing goes on too...
| alistairSH wrote:
| Interesting. I'm solidly upper-middle-class (typical income
| for this forum, I imagine). I don't think doubling my net
| worth would make me much happier or financially more secure.
| It would allow a new Tesla instead of a used BMW. And flying
| business class for vacation. With the state of health
| care/insurance in the US, despite being a ridiculous amount
| of money by most measures, it wouldn't allow me to retire in
| the 50s or remove the concern that I'm one bad car accident
| or cancer scare away from financial ruin.
| cableshaft wrote:
| Yep, the US healthcare system basically means you have to
| be a multimillionaire when you've retired if you want to
| have any semblance of a comfortable retirement, because any
| serious injury or health issue (which will happen at some
| point) will do a damn good job of sucking up most or all of
| that money away super fast.
|
| If you're younger at least you might get lucky with
| GoFundMe "insurance", but that requires your story being
| sad or unusual enough to go viral, or you have a large
| family and friends network (starting a donation campaign on
| GoFundMe.com, what just about every American has to rely on
| for serious health expenses nowadays). If you're old you're
| probably not going to be pulling at enough heart strings to
| rely on this, though.
| mikem170 wrote:
| > Yep, the US healthcare system basically means you have
| to be a multimillionaire when you've retired
|
| That's just not true. Everyone qualifies for Medicare
| when they are 65 years old. An extra $150/month gets you
| supplemental insurance, with a lower deductable than many
| work plans.
|
| Also, and this is significant, medical bills can't
| collect against retirement accounts. The law is that they
| can't touch it. Same with your house and car. You can
| have $10k, $100k, or a million dollars in a 401k, an ira,
| or a roth, and withdraw it as you need it, to supplement
| your social security income.
| cableshaft wrote:
| After doing the math, it's looking like my rough estimate
| was a little high, but I suspect the numbers I'm about to
| share is higher than you're thinking.
|
| Sure, they qualify for Medicare, but that doesn't mean
| they won't be still be spending serious money on
| healthcare. According to CNBC, if you were retiring in
| 2019, as a couple _in good health_ you 'll need on
| average of $390,000[1]. That assumes you're on Medicare
| as well. I'm guessing most people here are about 35 years
| old or younger, so not eligible for Medicare for at least
| another 30 years.
|
| If I assume 2.5% inflation over the next 30 years (the
| default given in the following link[2]), that $390k in
| 2019 becomes $860k in 2051.
|
| Granted that seems to be the average, and there will be
| people with less expenses. But that's just healthcare.
| While you'll probably own your home outright by then,
| there's the eventual assisted living that might be in
| your future as well, which already can cost up to
| $1500-4000 a month _today_ (with monthly expenses another
| $2k+)[3], let alone 40-50 years from now. Although I
| suspect some people help pay for that by selling their
| homes at that point.
|
| So okay, maybe you don't need to be a multi-millionaire
| when you retire to be comfortable, but you probably
| should try to be a millionaire, at least you and your
| spouse together (assuming you're going to have one).
|
| One thing I didn't take into account was Social Security,
| which assuming it's still around in 2050 that will offset
| some of this. I do have a bad habit of assuming Social
| Security is going to be either severely nerfed or fall
| apart by the time I retire, so I tend not to account for
| it in my retirement planning. Maybe you could knock off
| $300k thanks to Social Security checks, I don't know and
| don't have time to dig further.
|
| [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/retiring-this-year-
| how-much-...
|
| [2] https://smartasset.com/investing/inflation-calculator
|
| [3] https://www.assistedliving.org/the-average-cost-of-
| senior-li...
| burntoutfire wrote:
| So how come I keep hearing that a significant portion of
| homeless in the US have lost their houses in a medical-
| event-realted bankruptcy?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Retirees qualify for nationalized health insurance. In
| theory, those 65+ would be mostly immune for health-
| related bankruptcy (although co-pays/deductibles can
| still be problematic).
|
| Anybody younger has to pay for health care out of pocket
| or buy insurance. The cost of paying OOP is exorbitant.
| Even buying insurance on the open market is outrageously
| expensive. In either case, major medical issues can
| easily escalate to be financially disastrous.
|
| Edit - in my original post, I stated doubling my net
| worth (or income or whatever) wouldn't allow me to retire
| in my 50s due to potential medical costs. This is what I
| mean - even with a few million in the bank, retirement
| isn't feasible due to the cost of buying healthcare in
| the US.
|
| I had this conversation with an uncle who lives in
| Scotland. He didn't understand why my dad was still
| working (at age 60). Medical insurance was the only
| reason. As soon as he got Medicare, he retired.
| mikem170 wrote:
| For the benefit of others who may be reading I'll mention
| a couple of other programs...
|
| There's Medicaid, the federally funded healthcare program
| for the poor. It is free. As a single person there are
| really low limits on how much assets and income you can
| have and qualify. Kids are more easily qualified, even if
| there parents may not be. Doctor choice is limited, there
| are lines, etc.
|
| There's also the VA, available for veterans. I'm not sure
| of the rules around this. But those qualified get free
| care.
|
| Throughout the country hospitals are supposed to patch up
| anyone who shows up with an emergency. The patient will
| get a bill after, but they won't be left to bleed to
| death. This doesn't help with slowly developing problems,
| though.
|
| Beyond these free programs, (and Medicare for retired
| folks, talked about earlier), there's also Obamacare,
| which subsidizes medical coverage for those making too
| much to qualify for Medicaid. Someone working full time
| for minimum wage and making $14k per year (which is
| enough to rent a room and have a junk car), might end up
| with a subsidized plan having a $6k+ deductable (which
| they don't have!), someone making double that (enough for
| an inexpensive apartment and a used car) would pay $175 a
| month for the same plan. Obamacare details vary by state.
|
| People with jobs making more than the above often have
| health care offered through work, and no longer qualify
| for Obamacare plans. At the low end these plans may not
| be as good as the Obamacare plans. Typically these plans
| might cost the employee $100-$200/month and up if there
| are multiple plans to choose from (the employer may be
| contributing 2-5x that, depending on the job), and have a
| deductable of several thousand dollars, with yearly exams
| and routine screening included for free. The problem
| becomes that you have to pay for everything else up to
| your deductable, then costs are shared up to a max limit
| perhaps $15k, then the plan covers all costs for all
| covered care. The deductable and maximum double for
| family plans.
|
| One big problem with all the plans with deductables is
| that it is near impossible to find out what anything non-
| trivial will cost, which is discouraging when you have to
| pay some of these costs.
|
| Government employees typically have the best plans,
| similar to what the average white collar worker had 20-30
| years ago. Small copayments instead of large deductables.
| These plans were phased out by most private employers
| because they were too expensive, for both employers and
| most employees.
| mikem170 wrote:
| I would guess the typical example of this might be a
| working age person who lived paycheck to paycheck then
| had a non-trivial medical issue to deal with. They may
| have already had other house/car/student/credit-card
| debt. The medical problem may have interfered with their
| ability to work. They may qualify for other free-care
| programs after they burn through all their savings.
|
| (That's where putting those savings in retirement
| accounts would have helped, but with few exceptions you
| can't access that money before the age of about 60, and
| also remember that it's a borrow and spend culture here,
| not saving for a rainy day.)
|
| The best one could say is that bankruptcy is a way to get
| a clean slate, wiping out prior debts, and to be sure
| that the homeless statistic you are looking at doesn't
| count those who moved back in with family as homeless
| (some do).
|
| The worst one can say is that the system is optimized to
| extract as much money as possible form as many people as
| possible...
| tangjurine wrote:
| What about private insurance?
| castlecrasher2 wrote:
| This is patently false and what mikem170 says is true. My
| mother has little-to-no savings and had a serious issue
| happen where she was in the ICU for a couple weeks and
| then in a rehabilitation facility for a month and a half,
| and paid nothing.
| dagw wrote:
| I thought everybody over 65 in the US got free national
| healthcare?
| schrectacular wrote:
| They get free national health insurance, but it doesn't
| cover everything and dealing with the bureaucracy is a
| non trivial amount of effort. And there are still out of
| pocket deductibles to pay even with this national
| coverage. As a result people often purchase supplementary
| insurance.
| hc-taway wrote:
| It's the US, so of course "free healthcare" still leaves
| you with lots of large bills if you actually use any
| healthcare. Usually one pays for "gap coverage"
| insurance, running low-hundreds of dollars per person
| (consider: married couples) to cover things that aren't
| covered, or are poorly-covered, by Medicare[0] and those
| _still_ don 't mean you aren't going to have a
| substantial hospital bill if anything goes wrong (as they
| usually don't cover 100% of a bill, just like normal US
| health insurance)
|
| [0] Medicare is our insurance program for old people, and
| I think also kicks in for those who are disabled at
| younger ages. Medicaid is the name for our HC program for
| the very poor. People get these mixed up because the
| names are so similar. Then of course there's our coverage
| for the active military and their families (Tricare) and
| VA healthcare coverage for retired military. And programs
| for other government employees, and their families. By
| the time you add it all up, a huge percentage of the US
| population is already covered by government healthcare
| schemes, actually, which is reflected in our spending
| enough on publicly-funded healthcare that we _should_ be
| able to cover everyone with just that money, if our costs
| were similar to the rest of the OECD. Instead we still
| have the costs of private insurance and bills to
| individuals even when covered by healthcare (these can
| run into the five figures per year, easily, on top of
| insurance costs) and, for some of the above, huge
| expenses in addition to the costs of the government
| portion of the HC program.
|
| [EDIT] Medicare gap coverage tends to run low-hundreds of
| dollars per person _per month_ , in case that wasn't
| clear.
| bzbarsky wrote:
| Medicare is reasonably cheap (assuming you paid Medicare
| taxes for at least 7.5 years; if you did not, it's at
| least $471/month). To be clear, "relatively cheap" is "at
| least $148.50/month; more if you have more income during
| retirement".
|
| But past the premiums, there are deductibles, coinsurance
| (e.g. for hospital stays longer than 60 days), you still
| have to pay for medicines (how much varies), etc. See
| https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/medicare-
| costs-... and the links from it for details.
| [deleted]
| 1-more wrote:
| The benefits cliff of health insurance is so real, and those
| cliffs exist all over the place (an example is in the SUNY system
| for tuition). Universal programs without means testing seem like
| such a better way to run things. If you have a somewhat right
| wing philosophy: it allows the truly exceptional individuals of
| every cohort to reach their potential. For left wingers: it is
| giving equally to everyone's shared needs from society as a
| whole.
| Tade0 wrote:
| This is such a different experience than being poor-ish in
| eastern Europe.
|
| I grew up in a below-average household, my SO in outright
| poverty.
|
| We couldn't afford shool books and clothes other than off brand
| stuff, her family had to buy appliances like a washing machine or
| refrigerator used.
|
| The five of us lived in a 45m2(500sq. ft.?) apartment, the four
| of them in a 25m2 one.
|
| My dad bought his car in 1992 new (back when we were better off),
| and accumulated less than 140k km over the 23 years he had it,
| both of her parents didn't have a driving license.
|
| But with all that we could rely on public healthcare,
| transportation and the areas we lived in were relatively safe.
| pokot0 wrote:
| European pro life tip: if you make 200.000/yr don't let anyone
| lend you money. Buy your car cash, no cc debt. Mortgage would be
| the only exception. I honestly find it crazy how most american
| are ok with living on someone else money and pay the interests
| just to have a current year car...
| trynumber9 wrote:
| Often you can get no interest loans for new cars. In that case,
| it is cheaper to invest the cash and pay off the loan with less
| valuable money over the next few years.
|
| Of course the car is still depreciating rapidly so I question
| the wisdom of buying a current year car at all. But it is
| comforting to have a newer car covered by warranty.
| pokot0 wrote:
| Yes, I agree with you. Specifically is the idea of
| considering the car a monthly cost instead of a capital
| investment is all in favour of financial and car companies.
| You will get a new model if your monthly cost does not
| change. In my experience, all of my cars were a great value
| if you own and hold onto them for 10 yrs or more (the first
| 10 years cars need almost 0 maintenance)
| dnautics wrote:
| is it crazy? If you can get terms on low enough interest rate
| and long enough time horizon (aka, you're rich) it's not a bad
| choice because you are (safely) gambling that your earnings
| potential will go up over time, in both real and nominal terms,
| letting the cost of the debt decrease over time. Moreover, the
| opportunity cost of that cash not being invested and used for
| purchases is real.
| pokot0 wrote:
| You assume people are investing that money. What I see is
| people having a lifestyle that is only possible with lended
| money. Those are expenses and not investments and put you in
| a position where a minor change in your expected income
| growth will deeply affect your lifestyle.
| throw1234651234 wrote:
| The thing that most people, including those in this thread, don't
| understand about poverty, is that the side-effects don't
| magically go away after you are an adult.
|
| Reading the replies here, I do get the typical sense of "well,
| they are people who made poor choices, sort of feel sorry for
| them, can't relate."
|
| In reality, many poor adults were poor children. The funny thing,
| is that in the glorious US of A, the main distinction is worse
| than in other countries - if you are poor, you go to a school
| district where 95% don't go to college and you get stabbed and
| hooked on something.
|
| That aside - no one tells you to study for the SATs, no one tells
| you to brush your teeth with an electric toothbrush and floss,
| while not drinking pop which destroys your enamel. No one tells
| you to do your cardio and no one evaluates your postural
| imbalances. No one has you studying Deutsch and Fancaise. No one
| takes you swimming, and you probably don't do a martial art
| unless you get lucky enough to get into a ghetto boxing gym.
|
| So, by the time you are 18, you have ruined health and an under-
| developed mind, and then everyone looks at you and thinks - what
| a careless, lazy, adult. He/she isn't even going to college -
| what an embarrassment. And while there is the military, the poor
| don't even get properly told about that and what's available.
| spicymaki wrote:
| > That aside - no one tells you to study for the SAT
|
| This is so true. When you are truly poor, nobody is grooming
| you to succeed in a competitive environment. Actually the
| people in your life don't even know how to prepare you, even if
| they wanted to. When I see people on HN talk about IQ this and
| GPA that, superior this and inferior that, I can tell they are
| in a bubble.
| alexashka wrote:
| > everyone looks at you and thinks - what a careless, lazy,
| adult. He/she isn't even going to college - what an
| embarrassment.
|
| How do you know anyone is thinking that?
|
| Here's what I think about poor/homeless/rich/whatever people in
| general: nothing. They don't exist in my mind, I'm thinking
| about my own life.
| domano wrote:
| Living in a country where there is a better social net in place,
| but coming from a refugee background, i regularly notice a
| disconnect with my peers.
|
| I do understand their financial worries and sympathize, but only
| because i am aware of my perspective. Oftentimes i have to remind
| myself that for others it is actually stressful to think about
| not being able to comfortably buy a house vs renting it.
|
| Meanwhile i worry about my mothers retirement, how i can get her
| out of this shady living situation and how i can pay back
| everything she has done to bring me up despite circumstances.
|
| Actually i wish for others that were better off their whole life
| to have my perspective for some time, since i think that it would
| really make them less stressed about their future.
| varjag wrote:
| Seriously, some responses here are mildly bewildering in the
| extent people can't relate their life experience to actual
| poverty.
| sorisos wrote:
| Comforting to here someone else react to these "alienated"
| commenters. I feel they made this the most depressing HN
| thread I have ever read.
| myself248 wrote:
| What's jarring to me is the author's characterization of car
| repair as "poor-people skills". Knowing how to use tools can
| be part of being poor, or it can be part of being an engineer
| who designs things that can actually be manufactured and
| assembled.
|
| Either that or I'm a lot poorer than I think I am!
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > What's jarring to me is the author's characterization of
| car repair as "poor-people skills".
|
| Car repair is a skill of economic importance of you are
| poor or employed in auto repair. Otherwise, it's obviously
| a skill someone might have, but far less critical.
| hinkley wrote:
| Repairs are another thing.
|
| I recall feeling it when I was younger and we were in a worse
| place. Now I feel it every time someone tells me the price for
| pruning a tree, fixing my house wiring, or making my pet more
| comfortable. There's a moment after they say the number where
| they are bracing for an argument. When I just say 'Okay', some
| of them seem a little startled.
|
| Another aspect may be that I have in fact worked with my hands
| before. It's possible I might have done it anyway, but needing
| money is powerful motivation for getting dirt under your nails.
| So I understand the cost of parts and labor, whereas some of my
| newer peers may not. Yes, that repair really is $800, and yes
| I'm fine with paying it.
| TheButlerian wrote:
| What a loser.
| teddyh wrote:
| Related:
|
| 5 Things Nobody Tells You About Being Poor, May 27, 2011:
| (https://www.cracked.com/blog/5-things-nobody-tells-you-about...)
|
| The 5 Stupidest Habits You Develop Growing Up Poor, January 19,
| 2012: (https://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-habits-you-
| deve...)
|
| 4 Things Politicians Will Never Understand About Poor People,
| February 21, 2013: (https://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-
| politicians-will-never...)
| scandox wrote:
| Talleyrand related a story about Bourienne, who missed out on
| becoming the Prefect of Police of Paris and 200,000 a year
| because he travelled from Hamburg in a broken down carriage and
| lost 24 hours reaching the city to grab the opportunity:
|
| "It shows why one should never be a poor devil"
|
| And this is exactly why the rich get richer: they're in a
| position to take opportunity and to do so in a calm, orderly
| fashion.
|
| https://books.google.ie/books?id=0djR6fbrIEYC&printsec=front...
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| > a pretty bottom-barrel ford leases for 300-400 a month
|
| Ford leases seem to be expensive for some reason, and not
| indicative of the overall market. For instance, a base model
| Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic can be leased for $160/month, with
| $0 down. With $1000 down, these figures are close to $100/month.
|
| > A company is looking to pay a person as little as they can and
| keep them, so a person's pay is determined by how rare their
| skills are and how much demand there is for those skills
|
| > I mentioned this before, but I can work on cars, and I'm able
| to do anything less complex than a full engine or transmission
| rebuild
|
| I'm sure becoming a mechanic has crossed the author's mind at
| some point. I'd love to hear their thoughts on this.
| throwaway0a5e wrote:
| Ever notice how those ads say something like "qualifying
| customers". If your credit score is in the toilet you're not
| getting any of those prices.
|
| The domestics, koreans, nissan and mistu will lease to anyone
| with a pulse but if your credit is bad the monthly rate or
| requireed uprfront payment is gonna climb quickly.
|
| You might as well need the president of the local yacht club
| write you a recommendation to get a sub-$200 lease on a Toyota,
| Honda or other middle class "look how financially prudent I am"
| status symbol. Anyone who doesn't have good credit AND the
| ability to put a good chunk of the lease down up front is going
| to be paying a "this is our polite way of telling to you to
| drag across the street to the Nissan dealer" price.
|
| Also, those promotional rates are just that, promotional rates.
| Often times the details work out such that taking a higher rate
| on a lease and putting less down up front results in a lower
| cost per duration of ownership.
| MontyCarloHall wrote:
| Yeah, fair enough, I hadn't thought about that. Underscores
| exactly why articles like this are good reading.
| aembleton wrote:
| > Honda Civic can be leased for $160/month, with $0 down
|
| Is that available to people without a good credit rating?
| hikerclimb wrote:
| Hopefully I become poor. I would rather be poor than rich
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-01 23:02 UTC)