There is always a justification, even if those things are what’s keeping someone poor. Everyday their decisions are shaped by the above statement, so everyone of their decisions fail.
Their life sucks, so they deserve a luxury, which makes their life suck, so they deserve another luxury, which makes their life suck even more, so they need more luxuries. But you can’t point out what the obstacles are between you and a better life, that would be demeaning.
I find this kind of critique of the poor so very very strange. I have insurance and am above the poverty line (albeit I have a meager income), the last time I went to the dentist it cost me $900 and I was scrimping as much as possible on services and I still had to take out a loan through the dentist office. How is this comparable to a maybe $100 day trip to brighten up you children’s life so that they don’t grow up in misery? BTW you said “kids” so if TWO kids needed care at the dentist like I did, that’d be $1800 dollars for their kids to go to the dentist. How is it not understandable that parents can afford one and not the other?
BTW, I believe healthcare should be nationalized, and the fact that all healthcare is not free especially for innocent children, in the supposed “most wealthy nation on earth” is criminal. But I digress.
Yup. I mentioned upthread, I know some people like this. They are well off income-wise and live with the same sort of issues as if they were poor.
To my mind, the difference in mentality goes something like this. Everyone uses money to feel better about themselves in various ways. Some feel better by having a safety blanket in the form of money saved up. That feeling is more likely to lead to someone being less poor, than those who use money to feel better by spending it on stuff.
The problem is, it is hard to change how people feel about stuff. Myself, I’m a natural saver. There is nothing money can do that gives me more satisfaction than knowing I have enough saved away to take care of any contingency or emergency, and that I have no serious debts. Hence, paying down debts, and saving money, is a high priority for me, and was when I had very little of it.
My friend, on the other hand, is a natural spender. When he gets money, it burns a hole in his pocket. There is nothing that gives him greater satisfaction than having a nice car and a nice house filled with beautiful furnishings. This satisfaction far outweighs any satisfaction he gets from having savings, so he doesn’t have any.
I worked my way out of poverty and it took YEARS and I lived off of fucking rice, and I went without A/C and I didn’t have pets and I stayed home, and I was miserable, and yes I managed to crawl out of it, and hopefully Broomstick will too, but you know what? It wasn’t solely because of my hard work, and I fucking know that. It was because I was lucky. Very very lucky. I know people who are still stuck in that hole, and I have basic human empathy for them, and I can see their situation and understand that there but for the grace of god go I. But you’d rather put yourself on a pedestal and act like it’s just so fucking easy. I wish to god I could make you live like I did for a month, and then see how smart you feel then. You have no fucking idea. None. And instead of being humbled by that, you use your ignorance as a cudgel against people who’ve lived it and know better because in this society being poor means you’re less than, and how could people who’ve been there know better; everyone knows poor people are stupid and lazy, why look at all these excuses! Nevermind the OP asked for examples of why people get stuck on this mentality, which is what is being provided. You’d think lived experience would be worth something, but you know better huh?
I knew 4 pages ago this thread had nothing to do with learning or facts, and was just a place to bash on poor people. It’s my own damn fault for reading this shit.
It was because they had people who didn’t show up for their appointments, and when they did show up later, they said things like, “Oh, I forgot and took the kids to that amusement park.”
Certainly there are people who have misplaced priorities, but I disagree that it’s a mentality that can’t be fixed. I read a lot of books about personal finance, and also watch a number of T.V. shows that deal with personal finance issues, and one thing that has become clear to me is that one of the easiest things to fix is misplaced priorities. If you are unemployed, or truly struggling with a low-wage job, and have outstanding debts and obligations that you can’t meet, that’s a tough problem that has no easy solution. But if you have money, but are just putting it in the wrong places, that is definitely fixable. Sometimes all it takes is people being shown how much they’re spending, and on what. Plenty of people not only have no idea what is going out each month, they have no idea what is coming in each month. Sitting down and reviewing your finances, making a budget and changing your priorities takes some work, but it is a solution, and I’ve seen it used successfully too many times to say that a poor mentality can’t be changed.
Mistake… I meant $360 per year.
So what should the poor spend their money on that is not absolutely necessary for survival (including what level of food, clothes, etc)?
Not everyone who was poor had your experiences either though. I was born poor, raised poor and pulled my ass out of it with a combination of luck, hard work and determination. My father was a day laborer for the railroad who had to quit working in his 40’s because of health issues. Neither he or my mother graduated high school, but they made education a priority for us growing up. He had 11 children and I was the middle one born when he was 35. So I grew up poor, dirt poor, so I do indeed know what it means to be poor. Man do I know what it is like to be poor–I hated it. Those were indeed tough years.
I am now over 50 years old and now make well over 6 figures and live very comfortably. ALL of my brothers and sisters do as well. As far as I know all are liberals or lean that way (me included, although I call myself a moderate independent) but we ALL are strong supporters of government. I would not be where I am without student grants and loans so I am a strong supporter of government programs to help poor people.
We all went to college through a combination of working, government grants, student loans, scholarships, etc. Or we started working in one job and from there moved to better paying jobs. None of us had children early, and most had only one child, with my older sisters having three and two children each respectively. None of us got into drugs or drinking or having the latest gadgets. All own our own homes, all are savers and all are doing well financially. None of this was learned from our parents, as my parents never had money. I always viewed us as a typical Hispanic and Catholic family but again all I have to go on is my life.
Not to discount ANY of the experiences noted in this thread but how or what makes us different? I agree it wasn’t easy but it is doable or is my experience (and the experiences of all of my brothers and sisters) that unique? For me that is the more interesting question. I don’t look in disdain at poor people who struggle because I know how difficult it is. However I do honestly think it is possible to achieve what you want in this country but I have only my families experiences to go on.
For me the more interesting question (which I think the OP was after) is the idea of misplaced priorities of people who have actual money (ie. not the working poor). I have several friends who make as much as I do, if not more, who came from upper middle class backgrounds and they live paycheck to paycheck. That boggles my mind. Someone who is poor and struggles, I understand why they live paycheck to paycheck. Someone who makes six figures I don’t.
emacknight, I’m having trouble parsing your point.
Above you pointed out that someone paying $40 a night for a crappy hotel could pay for a better, cheaper hotel that you pay by the week, if they would save money for the first weekly payment. You then point out that they can’t afford to save that money, since they’re broke (presumably because they have to pay $40 a day to sleep.)
You then said you’ve worked for a charity that pulled people out of this situation by subsidizing an apartment for them for a while, giving them the opportunity, finally, to plan and save.
But then the rest of your posts seem to be talking about how people in poverty are generally there because of their own poor spending decisions. But you just illustrated how that is often not the case! You even pointed out that providing them with the right kind of resources got them out of the situation–which would seem to contradict the idea that they were hopelessly lost to some pattern of poor decision making. The problem, apparently, wasn’t poor decision making, but lack of resources to get out of teh shitty hotel trap.
I am confused. What’s your point here exactly?
I was discussing the same issue upthread - I think the answer may be as simple as this: for some folks, money = safety; others simply don’t have that fear, so they spend money as fast as they get it.
If money = safety to you, you will derive more satisfaction from saving some than from spending it. It is actually more satisying, to you, to know that you have something in the bank than to (say) have a better car.
I think you are probably right. My daughter and her best friend both work at the same pizza place and take home the same amount each check. My daughter (bless her!) immediately puts 25% of her take home into a savings account. Her friend spends everything. Now a year later my daughter has quite a savings account and her friend doesn’t. I know for my daughter she likes having that money there and knowing if she truly TRULY wanted something she could buy it. But I think she likes knowing the money is there more.
I think this is true, there’s different mentalities people have. Some people can earn money and have no problem saving it, and some people would want to spend it immediately. It’s like with food; you could put a chocolate cake in front of two people who love cake, and one person would be able to take just one small piece, and the other would have difficulty stopping at four pieces. It wouldn’t be impossible for the second person to eat in moderation, they could get up from the table so the chocolate cake isn’t sitting right in front of them, but it’s just harder for them. Both the spender and the over-eater can change their habits to be more like the saver and the normal eater, but it will take more discipline and will be harder. The spender and the over-eater are responsible for their problems, but I can have sympathy for things being harder for them than the saver and normal eater who find it easier to do things in moderation.
This is also very true and can also be compared to food. People often don’t realize how much they are really eating until they keep a food diary. And people don’t realize how much they are spending on stuff and how it adds up until they keep track of it. And how it can seem overwhelming to lose weight or save money when there’s a lot you need to do, but it is much easier if it can be broken down into smaller steps.
That seems like a scheduling problem which all classes of people can be bad at, not necessarily a poor person misusing their meager funds then?
I noticed this as well. He contradicted himself by explaining in depth and realistically, how being poor is more expensive than having enough money for an apartment etc, but his example was not one of a poor choice, but a poor situation.
I knew a guy who was basically pseudo-homeless scraping together the $60 for a motel each night on minimum wage day labor. He had no better choices (at that point), because it would take decades saving pennies every day to get together enough for first and last and deposit on an apartment, if they would even rent to a person in his “caste”.
Thank you, exactly my point. No one else can ever possibly have any idea except for you. You alone are the only one, everyone else is just trying to bash the poor. If a guy came home every day and flushed his spare change down the toilet you’d find a way to justify it, and protect him from criticism.
So now we all have to compare how poor we’ve been, since only the poor have relevant experience, and since you were the poorest you get to be the deciding factor in all things poor. When the OP wanted examples, you just provided the best one.
They seemed to hear that excuse only from the population we’re talking about - the low-income people with horribly misplaced priorities.
As for higher income people who do, look at all the entertainers and professional athletes who are multimillionaires one year, and bankrupt the next.
Yes, the example illustrates a very common problem for people in poverty that exists from the very bottom (guy making a few bucks a day) to the working poor who have three jobs but can’t make ends meet. What’s crazy about the example is that two people can make exactly the same amount of money, but live in entirely different worlds; one is functionally homeless, the other owns a house.
The program I worked with took people that demonstrated they could hold a job for 6 months, and then taught them how to function in a capitalist society so as not to get shit out the bottom. Really basic, simple stuff that most of us take for granted, but a lot of stuff that we’d all benefit from.
During one of the sessions he’d have people bring in their utility bills for the past few months and simply ask, “do you like paying $500 a month for utilities, would you rather have some of that for other things?” No judgement, so suggestions, simply forcing people to look at the bill as it relates to their finances. Then he’d ask, “what do you think causes the bill to be $500, and is there anything you could do to lower that bill?”
At the end of the session, people realized that their power bill could be a lot lower. Without stupid sacrifices like living in the dark, but by making slightly better decisions through the day. Suddenly they were richer, and had more income at the end of the month. It only took a couple of slightly better decisions, that freed up a bit of cash that could go into savings.
Once they have some savings, they can make a decision like buying a washer/dry vs going to the laundromat. That is a crazy decision to make, but when you put it on paper it’s kind of cool. Increased cost of utilities, but significant time savings, etc.
I guess you don’t know the difference between an “excuse” and an “explanation”.
Sticking your head in the sand and saying there’s no reason for anyone to be poor or stay poor is no more accurate than saying poor things, it’s completely not their fault.
Oddly enough, neither miss elizabeth nor I have ever used those particular “excuses”.
I would be the first to say that poor people should NOT be spending money on the lottery, they should quite smoking, and as for myself, when I was unemployed I drank no alcohol at all. Even when I do, it’s a single drink in a night, never hung over or even a little off the next day.
Poor people spend money on those things usually because they’ve learned bad habits from their parents. Their parents used alcohol to numb the pain so they do. Their family used alcohol at every social event so they do. They feel so hopeless they don’t think their own efforts will lift them out of poverty so it would take something lucky like the lottery to do that (not to mention poor education doesn’t help in evaluating whether or not lottery tickets make sense to purchase). Tobacco habit is frequently passed down parent to child.
And, again, middle class people make the same bad decisions and have the same bad habits, the only difference is that they have sufficient money coming in to make up for the liability such habits cause.
In other words, such persons as yourself demand that the poor be more virtuous than anyone else to get even equal respect.
What? I’ve been putting weather plastic over my windows since forever, regardless of socio-economic status.
There’s a difference between what you’re saying and what I’m saying: I’m saying one, maybe two luxuries a month (which, as in my examples, might be as “extravagant” as buying kiwifruit instead of bruised apples!) can be good for a person’s mental health. You charged right to the notion people have nothing BUT luxuries. You say poor people should have NO luxuries, in other words, they should be more ascetic and virtuous than anyone else or they’re bad people.
A bit of an unreasonable standard.