
The Logic of Stupid Poor People (2013) - RodericDay
http://tressiemc.com/2013/10/29/the-logic-of-stupid-poor-people/
======
nostromo
This article connects the virtue of appearing professional to overspending on
luxury goods as if they are identical.

I'm reminded of the "chav" subculture in Britain and their love of Burberry.
(Extreme example:
[http://i.imgur.com/8QxFSh5.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/8QxFSh5.jpg)) I don't get
the feeling that they're trying to open doors to the British upper-class, but
rather using it as a status-symbol within their own community.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with that; everyone wants to look good
for their peers. But I feel like the author is trying to make it more noble
than it is.

~~~
allendoerfer
I thought of the same thing. I do not think, that you buy status symbols to
move to an upper class, I think they are uniforms to identify yourself within
your own class and move to the top of it.

Excessive manicure, hair extensions etc. are expensive but seem like a stupid
investment. They (in my mind, subjectively) lower your social status, because
they are uniforms of the lower class.

Moving one class up, a big car is expensive, but you still will not be
accepted in the (upper) middle class if you do not have a proper job or you
wear a uniform of the lower class. The question arises whether your house is
paid of or not and why you bought that car if it is not

The farther up you rise in the Bildungsbürgertum [0], the more subtle the
indicators get: Do you use foreign words, that indicate your French/Latin
language education? Which instruments do your children play? Do your children
play football (soccer) or tennis?

The point of these status indicators is, that you can not fake them easily.
You can not pay of your house if you do not have a proper paying job. You have
to get a certain education to show of certain skills. If you have these things
you already belong to the respective class.

Edit: Wanted to add one more thing: My most favourite social status indicator
is the number of children. It seems to me, that having more than 3 children is
an indicator of either the lower class, because the marginal costs of an
additional child are mostly paid by the state, or the upper class, because you
they can handle the marginal costs on their own again. The middle class often
does not want to pay these costs.

[0]:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildungsb%C3%BCrgertum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildungsb%C3%BCrgertum)

~~~
marincounty
In most of America, we don't have a ridid class system.

At least where I grew up, how much money you had, and what clothes you wore
meant absolutely nothing. In fact, it often worked against you if you happened
to have rich parents--the whole spolied rich kid thing.

As adults, I guess Americans start to stereotype, but we don't have hard and
fast demarcations between low class and upper class.

I'm not saying Americans aren't racists, but the whole class thing was never a
big deal where I grew up, or I didn't notice it?

I have noticed a bit of a change lately, but it's still not a ridid system.

I have never heard a guy talk about the economic class a women fits into--
Never! They find that special person and will do anything to win them over. In
other words, they find that person they find Perfect, and want a relationship
--period. (The're usually rejected, but that's another topic.) I have seen
women judge people on how much money they come from, but it's not as strong as
in other countries, and it usually/always comes from jealousy. Yes, looks do
matter. It's a commodity, especially when you are younger. How much money you
have doesn't come into the picture until later in life, but that's for men. A
pretty, caring female is not judged on how much money she makes. In a lot of
circles, it might even work against her? Some of you will call me a sexist
over that statement, but it's just something I have noticed. A rich guy who
looks/acts like Donald Trump will get his pick. A rich women does not get the
same perks. Yes--it's wrong, but I can care less over the happiness of the
wealthy. (There I go, I am using wealthy as a demarcation of class? Yes, in
American we do talk about the wealthy, and 1 percenter's, but we don't
associated it with class, morals, manners, or intelligence. (Donald Trump is a
perfect example of a "upper class" person in America. It just doesn't work?)

Over the years, I have sat watched movies/series about the upper
classes(usually in Great Britain), and always found them hilarious. I know
it's because we don't have a monarchy--thank goodness--personally I couldn't
stomach all that pomposity, and family lineage b.s..

(This is coming from a 40 someting, who's always lived in liberal
communities.) I don't want to argue--I never even come back to posts. I hope I
didn't offend anyone concerning their perceived class?)

~~~
allendoerfer
Even if you will not answer me, I want to state, that I think your points a
highly subjective and I find all of them questionable. The inherent optimism
to rise up by your own does not make a society classless.

I can not think of a western country that is as extremely divided as America.
No limit at the top, no limit at the bottom.

People do not talk about the class of people they meet, because the mostly
meet people of their own class in the first place. You go to similar schools,
attend similar colleges and live in similar neighbourhoods.

Europe has its nouveau rich, that do not really belong to the 1%, too, the
same way, that America has its aristocrats, too. I mean, Bush, Clinton, Bush,
Obama and now Bush vs. Clinton again?!?

~~~
o0-0o
I think if you dig deeper you'll see that the only somewhat aristocratic
family in your statement are the Bushes. The Clinton's are just power hungry,
ugly, bourgeois. The Obama's are just a vessel for many things.

Otherwise, spot on, and fantabulous analogy about the limitless top and
bottom!

~~~
TheCoelacanth
The Kennedy's would be a better example of an aristocratic family than the
Clinton's.

------
mc32
A lot of what she says is true, but a lot of it is cultural and transcends
borders. If you go up to frugal places in new england, putting on airs will
not get you too far... but in other places, more flashy places, it helps.

But this phenomenon is certainly not only American or essentially white. You
can go to Japan and you can go to urban coastal china and contrast that with
rural china. Or you can go to Nigeria and contrast Lagos with people not from
Lagos.

The signaling and the the appearances are not either uniquely american nor are
they borne from mainstream american culture. It's pretty much semi-universal.

On the other hand, poor people in China and Japan will try to look as
presentable as possible while being quite frugal.

This whole thing brings up a pet peeve of mine and that's the "cultural fit"
meme one finds so pervasive in the valley. It's as if someone who has a
Motorola 'culture' is a bad 'fit' for working at Cloudera, to make something
up.

None the less, you see people slurping up the corporate culture du jour as if
a 'jobdesiac'. You could imagine how if essentially mainstream engineers can
be categorized as bad cultural fits just from one company to the next, how
slightly different cultures would have even more pronounced experiences due to
discrepancy.

~~~
detcader
What if "whiteness" is not a geographical/physical trait but a social
construction? What if whiteness varies in the specifics of its processes
around the world?

~~~
rhizome
"Whiteness" is absolutely physical/biological, but if you want to talk about
characteristics signifying traits associated with power and dominant status,
then yes, they are socially constructed. It's just not called "whiteness."

~~~
roywiggins
It is though.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies)

~~~
FeepingCreature
> if you want to talk about characteristics signifying traits associated with
> power and dominant status

Whiteness is associated with power and dominant status, but not all
categorizations of "characteristics signifying traits associated with power
and dominant status" are Whiteness. Whiteness is a subset of CSTAWPADS.

------
patio11
Somehow I think truth might be somewhere between "Poor people are making
rational decisions to consume status goods in the hopes of improving their
economic outcomes by convincing gatekeepers that they are, in fact, middle
class" and "Poor people are spending $2,500 on handbags because poor people
value handbags more than they value $2,500."

Case in point: there is no conceivable narrative by which one's sofa gets one
welfare benefits or a new job as a shift lead. Poor people apparently are
quite aware of this. When asked (in the article referenced by a sibling
thread), the young lady's answer to "Why did you buy a sofa?" answer was
"Because I wanted a sofa."

~~~
dghf
Can you link to the article in question? Wanting a sofa does not seem
unreasonable (you have to sit on something), and I feel I'm missing something.

Was it a particularly expensive sofa? Or by 'sofa', do you mean something
other than 'couch', which is what I take it to mean?

~~~
jasonkester
The idea is that one does not need a $1500 sofa if all one wants is something
to sit on.

As an example, I purchased my first sofa costing more than zero at age 43. But
I've always had sofas everywhere I lived before that. Sofas that meet the
definition of "something to sit on" can be had for roughly zero dollars and
are plentiful at that price point.

You would notice the difference if you put one side by side with a new one
costing $1500, indicating that perhaps that difference in appearance is the
real reason that somebody without $1500 to spare would choose to buy the
latter in favor of the former.

------
RodericDay
_I sat in on an interview for a new administrative assistant once. My regional
vice president was doing the hiring. A long line of mostly black and brown
women applied because we were a cosmetology school. Trade schools at the
margins of skilled labor in a gendered field are necessarily classed and
raced. I found one candidate particularly charming. She was trying to get out
of a salon because 10 hours on her feet cutting hair would average out to an
hourly rate below minimum wage. A desk job with 40 set hours and medical
benefits represented mobility for her. When she left my VP turned to me and
said, “did you see that tank top she had on under her blouse?! OMG, you wear a
silk shell, not a tank top!” Both of the women were black.

The VP had constructed her job as senior management. She drove a brand new BMW
because she, “should treat herself” and liked to tell us that ours was an
image business. A girl wearing a cotton tank top as a shell was incompatible
with BMW-driving VPs in the image business. Gatekeeping is a complex job of
managing boundaries that do not just define others but that also define
ourselves. Status symbols — silk shells, designer shoes, luxury handbags —
become keys to unlock these gates. If I need a job that will save my lower
back and move my baby from medicaid to an HMO, how much should I spend
signaling to people like my former VP that I will not compromise her status by
opening the door to me? That candidate maybe could not afford a proper shell.
I will never know. But I do know that had she gone hungry for two days to pay
for it or missed wages for a trip to the store to buy it, she may have been
rewarded a job that could have lifted her above minimum wage. Shells aren’t
designer handbags, perhaps. But a cosmetology school in a strip mall isn’t a
job at Bank of America, either._

~~~
Kabukks
_Gatekeeping is a complex job of managing boundaries that do not just define
others but that also define ourselves. Status symbols — silk shells, designer
shoes, luxury handbags — become keys to unlock these gates._

Pierre Bourdieu's "La Distinction" is a great text that investigates this
topic in depth. It's (among other things) about taste. How it's inherited
through generations, how it's a gatekeeping tool for jobs and status.

 _What_ you wear isn't the whole story btw. It's also _how_ you wear it (as
exemplified above ("Chavs" wearing Burberry)). One of Bourdieu's examples is
art and how one speaks about it (using certain words, knowing the "right"
works of art etc. Another example might be wine).

I don't know if Bourdieu is widely read in the US, but he certainly influenced
my thinking about class, class boundaries, and taste. Highly recommended.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
+1 for Bourdieu. I think everyone should read him.

I thought he was particularly interesting on music. You might expect the upper
classes to be opera buffs and experts on classical music. But in fact he found
that the middle classes used a knowledge of classical music as evidence of
aspiration.

The upper classes sometimes used opera as a status marker, but were more
likely to enjoy undemanding music, like easy listening and musicals -
presumably because they felt they had nothing to prove.

Interestingly, median prices for a stadium show by a mainstream act are higher
than tickets for most seats at the Royal Opera House.

------
AstroChimpHam
I grew up poor among other poor people, and it never struck me that anyone was
buying expensive stuff because they thought that's what would lead them to a
better job or some such. They were buying expensive stuff because they wanted
it. There's this new feel-good ideal that it's not poor peoples' fault they're
poor, but no one ever supplies data to back it up. Only well-written personal
stories. I'm sure it's not a binary, but from personal experience where I grew
up, the poor people in my family and around me were poor mostly because they
were lazy, wanted expensive possessions, and refused to work the long-game to
getting out of poverty.

I'd love to see real data that points to this being the exception.

~~~
zfghjk
There is a small irony in you asking other people for data to back up their
arguments, and then making your argument "from personal experience".

~~~
FeepingCreature
But note that a single counterexample disproves a general law.

~~~
Thimothy
Not in social sciences. When you are dealing with people and cultures, trying
to find a "law" that applies uniformly to everyone is naive.

BTW, if you are really interested, here is an article (with links to actual
scientific studies) on why being poor is hard:
[http://thepsychreport.com/research-application/featured-
rese...](http://thepsychreport.com/research-application/featured-research/the-
cognitive-burden-of-poverty/)

------
erikb
Really hard to read for me. I don't know the way the author expresses her
ideas is hard to grasp.

The basic idea of course is right: You need to fake status if you don't have
it, if you want some of the benefits.

But what is missing is some data. Because if we think that further, you can
certainly overspend on that hope that one day someone let's you in on
something because you have status. And probably many people do overspend on
that (I'm thinking about the golden $10k Apple watch here as an example).
There must be a way to evaluate how much is good and when it starts to hurt
you. And I guess there should be a lot of science on that.

~~~
danans
There is a comment below the original article which makes the point that even
knowing the threshold is itself a form of privilege in the particular case of
"dressing to impress".

~~~
erikb
Which comment do you mean? Ctrl-F for "threshold" and "dressing to impress"
didn't yield anything. Skimming the first three comments didn't either.

Also what's the point? I don't really agree with "knowing <X> = privilege" but
let's say it's true. Then what? Does that change what should be the best
decision? Does it change how we react on incomplete information?

Knowing that there is a threshold at which returns start to diminish is a good
point, because it tells you to look for clues of when to stop spending on
status symbols. Having an expensive watch might help you, but the $60k watch
might not improve your situations 10x of what a $6k watch would do.

Now if we add that the knowledge of the threshold is privilege, what does it
change? Of course the person who has that knowledge makes better decisions.
But knowing that it is a privilege to know that threshold doesn't give any
more change to the decision making process. Or at least I don't see it.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
This is just semi-anecdotal, but for watches I don't think there's really a
lower threshold when it comes to price. My watch is the $90 (sadly out-of-
production) Casio MDV-102 [1] which is a real cult classic. I have it on a
black and grey Nato strap ($10) and it does get me compliments from watch
connoiseurs from time to time. But I guess there's a definite knack to
recognizing cult classics though.

[1] [http://forums.watchuseek.com/f220/review-casio-
mdv102-duro-2...](http://forums.watchuseek.com/f220/review-casio-
mdv102-duro-200-super-illuminator-diver-472351.html)

~~~
dagw
People don't generally spend $60k on a watch to impress watch connoisseurs,
but to impress people who know nothing about watches. The reason Rolex is so
popular is not really because they are great watches (they are), but because
everybody knows that Rolexes are expensive.

------
k__
I like how this article is written, but I don't think many of the "unneeded
expensive buys" help to climb the ladder.

I think most of it is to feel better.

If you like your job and most of the other parts of your life, you spent less
money to feel better.

But if nobody gives you a good job and you don't have much time left for the
rest of your life, you get the impression that you have to buy happiness.

Can't blame those people. Did it myself for years.

------
zamalek
A high school friend of mine wound up working as an "ATM Clark" \- essentially
the guy in charge of filling ATMs. The salary varies wildly based on how much
overtime is done, his take-home salary was usually $2500/month (which lies in
the richer portion of the middle class in South Africa). His colleague did no
overtime and took home $500/month.

This guy who only earned $500 spent $400 on a loan and insurance for a Golf
GTi (one of the status symbol cars in South Africa). My friend who earned 5
times as much drove around in a derelict '92 VW Fox.

So I've seen it first-hand, "stupid poor people spending stupid amounts of
money on stupid things." In the same way me and my friend spent stupid amounts
of money on our own type of stupid things. We bought smartphones (back in
2005, this was the WinMo days) so that we could tinker with them. Instead of
getting a prestige symbols we got toys that we could play with.

Whether or not something is stupid depends on who you ask. If you ask a poor
person whether someone buying a nice car is stupid they will probably say
"no." If you ask them whether buying a smartphone (pre-iPhone, remember) is a
stupid idea they would definitely say "yes." I would guess it speaks about the
underlying psychology of wealth: those with no monetary wealth seek approval
from others (prestige symbols: cars, handbags, etc.) and those with much seek
approval from themselves (toys: fast internet, flashy computers, etc.).

~~~
PeterisP
This is also seen in many Eastern Europe places with flashy cars near
crumbling post-WW2 soviet apartment buildings where obviously their (leased)
car costs twice or more than any home there. Just because they show off their
car for style or status.

------
jokoon
Unfortunately today, integrating in society means being liked and for that,
you must blend in and look similar to other people. People feel much stronger
when they can see they are part of the larger group, and like to confirm their
norms as correct and will always unconsciously exclude minorities or people
who are off. Animals do exactly the same thing: groups of dogs will never
tolerate cats and vice versa. One cat can tolerate a dog, but never in groups.

That's why law was invented, to put some order into the zoo and transform it
into civilization. The real political issue is to make people have faith in
society and leave their culture at home.

The hardest difficulty for minorities is to not feel rejected, and to have
faith in the law and the democratic system. There has been real historical
progress towards legal statuses, but it's true that you can't really prevent
people from behaving like social animals and make sure they behave like
citizens first, social animal second.

The real intellectual fight, is to systemically crush the idea that some
cultures and ways of life are to be thanked for because they brought our
society's greatness. I guess the US is a large country with very diverse
cultures, and it can be very hard for the federal government to make the union
hold into something thriving and prosperous.

The saddest thing is when you hear people defending the founding fathers like
they are the sole ideal of america: white catholic conquerors founded america
and thus america should be at its image.

~~~
areyousure
Re your last sentence: hardly any Founding father was Catholic.

~~~
EliRivers
"Catholic" means "Christian" (well, "church universal", really), although it's
often used as a shorthand for "Roman Catholic", being a subset of Catholicism.

Sometimes the distinction is made by a lower case leading "c" for the church
universal, and an upper case leading "C" for shorthand of "Roman Catholic".

Here's a Lutheran church using the term in this way:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20081203192002/http://www.elca.or...](http://web.archive.org/web/20081203192002/http://www.elca.org/Growing-
In-Faith/Vocation/Rostered-Leadership/Leadership-Support/Safe-
Place/Terminology.aspx)

~~~
kylebgorman
Yes but the "universal" sense is vanishingly rare outside of religious
boilerplate and doesn't make sense in the context here.

------
dang
Discussion from 2013:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6647809](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6647809).

------
Shivetya
My favorite poor decision, tattoos.

I am not talking about the cutesy ankle tattoos, I am taking tattoos that
require long sleeves to cover up or worse cannot be hidden. Unless your trying
for a job where creativity is king I cannot find many instances where they are
acceptable.

------
cgio
I loved this part from the article.

 _That’s how generational wealth happens where I’m from: lose a leg, a part of
your spine, die right and maybe you can lease-to-own a modular home._

That was a very powerful sentence.

------
giancarlostoro
There certainly are many approaches to getting ahead if just enough. I suppose
some rely on 'status symbols', while others talk their way up the ladder. I
don't think this justifies some people's ridiculous purchases of status
symbols while they still live in poverty however, especially those who don't
use them to gain a leg up in their situation. I feel like that was not
considered in the writing of this article, I could be wrong though, or have
overlooked it.

------
wumbernang
I was going to write a diatribe about how my sister-in-law manages to get a
three bedroom semi in Berkshire in the UK, has a nice 60" television and an
iphone 6 and hasn't worked a day since 1998 nor has her numerous partners, her
physically disabled 15 year old son (who incidentally managed to scale a 7
foot tall wall because he couldn't be bothered to walk around the house to go
and buy cigarettes), sitting there with her friends last week all they
discussed was how to screw more things out of the state whilst bathing in a
cloud of smoke in the garden and simultaneously annoying their neighbours with
loud garage music..

...but I'm sure the logic of this article explains that...

Actually they're not stupid. They're ruthless in some areas and its hard for
me to sit there a a relative and not explode violently at them.

This post is somewhat an experiment however as reddit's UK population seems to
think that this class of person doesn't exist and would happily downvote
people off the internet for even suggesting it, labelling you as a tory
supporter and general inhuman.

~~~
littletimmy
What so wrong about that? She doesn't want to work. Her choice. Get over your
puritanical veneration for work. She is wise to have found a way to not work
and spend her time in leisure.

~~~
wumbernang
What is so wrong: It's dishonest.

Dishonest as she has built her life on a web of lies at the extreme cost of
others. Everything she owns is on credit and has no intention of paying for it
for example. If she's short of cash, her solution is to find someone to fuck
and get another kid to pay the bills.

She has three children. The oldest is disabled but not and has two criminal
records already. The middle one has been kicked out of two schools. And she
has a social worker for the third one.

Making a career out of dishonesty isn't acceptable morally. Neither is leaving
this legacy.

For ref, I'm not for work entirely and as someone who automates people out of
it, I understand that there isn't likely to be enough work to go around one
day.

Also I have three children and actually look after them.

~~~
littletimmy
No, that is presupposing that the way the system works is honest and just. I
don't agree with that at all.

The earth is bountiful enough for a person to live off it without working
(hunter-gatherer). Is it her fault that she was born at a time when all land
and productive capacity has been appropriated by those who came before? Is it
somehow noble for her to sell her body into labor to work in a society that
can feed all without making her into a wage slave?

"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free
that your very existence becomes an act of rebellion." \- Albert Camus

~~~
yummyfajitas
_The earth is bountiful enough for a person to live off it without working
(hunter-gatherer). Is it her fault that she was born at a time when all land
and productive capacity has been appropriated by those who came before?_

If that's the issue, there is a simple solution. We can provide
hunter/gatherer levels of subsistence for anyone who wants it in some roped
off, undeveloped land. Anyone who wants latrines, heating, clean water,
textiles or metal still needs a job in the modern world.

This will cost essentially nothing and will allow people to live as hunter
gatherers. Somehow I suspect this isn't quite what you had in mind.

~~~
ahh
Well, to be fair, no, we couldn't do this, at least not for any significant
fraction of the population. The carrying capacity for a traditional HG society
is a tiny fraction of an agricultural one (there should be more deer than
humans, etc.)

Mind you, very few people would take you up on the offer, as you know, so we
could probably manage this for anyone who wanted it...but doing so would take
a lot of work without providing a lot of benefit for the whole population. So
there's no good reason to. :)

~~~
yummyfajitas
I agree that no one actually wants this. It would take a moderate amount of
work, but certainly far less work than the modern welfare state which I'm
proposing using it as a substitute for.

My real point is that liltimmy's appeal to some hunter/gatherer era is silly.

------
szermer
By far the best article I read today. Thank you for sharing.

------
laichzeit0
Things don't even necessarily have to be expensive though. Someone that knows
how to dress will be able to judge you in 5 seconds and clock you for what
you're worth. The chest is too big, shoulder divots, sleeves not showing
enough collar, why in god's name is it a 3 button, did you really match your
pocket square to your tie, etc.

Simple things will betray you, much like accent and non idiomatic English. You
might not ever speak to this person, but they will have formed an opinion
about you in 5 seconds and poof! an opportunity slips by.

I know this seems "unfair" or maybe people will even say "yeah well if someone
is so superficial maybe it's a good thing" these are all just ways of trying
to rationalize an irrational world. Rather learn to play the game.

~~~
auxym
Also, for those of you not used to wearing a jacket, please don't button up th
last (lowest) button.

------
starmole
This is painful to read because it is true. It is very hard to explain
privilege. Almost all (good) privileged people have a very hard time of seeing
it. But how to fix it? My Fair Lady style? Trickle down? Charity? So far the
only thing that worked was Revolution.

------
WalterBright
People seem to constantly rediscover signaling with clothing. Recall "Dress
for Success" which came out in the 1970's, for example.

I know many people who refused to conform to clothing signaling norms, and it
has never worked for any of them.

------
pdkl95
A HN/tech-startup translate this kind of situation: would you reject someone -
and maybe not bother looking as hard into their technical qualifications - if
they showed up to the first interview in a "stuffy suit" that "obviously
wouldn't be a good cultural fit"?

Obviously, I'm stereotyping a bit, but that's kind of the point! Sometimes
there are barriers to overcome and middlemen that need to be appeased, and
working to overcome these problems is a demonstration of good problem solving
skills, even if it looks "stupid" to an outside observer.

------
PaulAJ
This is a continuation of sumptuary laws
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law)),
which were laws regulating what you could wear depending on your social class.
The supposed logic behind these laws was always to stop stupid poor people
from buying expensive clothes they couldn't afford, but the real reason was
always to preserve existing signals of wealth and class.

~~~
tsotha
Except that it's _not_ a continuation of sumptuary laws because there's a huge
difference between a law and individual decisions people make.

------
andrea_s
This piece hinges on the premise that "not filthy rich" is the same as "poor",
and goes on a tirade from there. Is it really that controversial to state that
you shouldn't buy what you can't afford?

~~~
johnloeber
I don't think you've read the article.

~~~
andrea_s
I've skimmed through it after the blatant straw man in the first paragraph,
which prompted me to post. I might read it later if the resulting discussion
on HN is interesting :-)

edit: downvote away, but I doubt I'm alone in feeling turned off by this kind
of clickbaity behavior

~~~
wutbrodo
I would assume the down votes are less about "avoiding clickbait" and more
about "commenting on something you didn't read"

~~~
andrea_s
Perhaps - but to me, the article goes like this:

[premise] society loves to hate on poor people and considers them stupid for
buying luxury

[tweet that states nothing of the sort, not even remotely]

[thesis]

so, given that I've never heard of this trope myself (perhaps it's a bit of a
US thing?) I felt turned off and commented on that, nothing less, nothing
more.

~~~
gknoy
I read this article years ago, and it's worth re-reading... ergo, not
clickbait.

The author talks about how it __appears__ wasteful to buy expensive clothes
when you're poor, but it's all about __signalling__ to others that you're
someone that should not be ignored. It profoundly changed the way I thought
about the "people buying expensive things they can't afford" idea when I read
it.

At the risk of quoting too much, this is the part that really was memorable
for me, and is worth reading more than once in the original article:

    
    
      I remember my mother taking a next door neighbor down to the 
      social service agency.  The elderly woman had been denied benefits .... 
      The woman had been denied in the genteel bureaucratic way — lots 
      of waiting, forms, and deadlines she could not quite navigate. 
    
      I watched my mother put on her best ... outfit.  
    
      It took half a day but ... my mother’s performance ... got done 
      what the elderly lady next door had not been able to get done 
      in over a year. I learned, watching my mother, that ... 
      we had to pay to signal to gatekeepers that we were worthy of engaging. 
      It meant dressing well and speaking well. It might not work. 
      It likely wouldn't work but on the off chance that it would, you had to try.
    

Sure, there are stupid people that buy things they don't need. However,
sometimes the things we think of as "luxury" are necessary for Getting Things
Done. Hell, this is the reason I have a suit in my closet that I've worn
rarely (job interviews). Expensive accessories and a Nice Outfit can help
people ensure that they aren't discriminated against for being "low-class".

------
dschiptsov
Intelligence (being well-read, habitual 'mapper') should come before
appearance. All these bearded hipsters, imitating the same personage from the
"Into The Wild" movie or each other, are so ridiculous, especially in India or
Nepal, where they seemed to believe that they belong to some alien super-
intelligent race or something. But when you are trying to talk to them, they
cannot express anything interesting, but a small set of current memes and
cultural codes.

One such hipster once told me that he is from a different tribe of humanity,
and commented two minutes later, that "the eachquake was nice, I learned a
lot". And he isn't even acting - he is just that.

Status symbols must be not vearable. It must be healthy looks and open-
mindedness - the effects of possession of at least some intelligence
(evolution do favour looks of healthy youth, not purchased status items
marketed as such. Not being able to grasp this simple fact means one isn't
qualified even for a hipster).

BTW, real intelligence and real spirituality does not require any special
attributes to make it self-evident. On the contrary, it is inversly correlated
with appearance - the dreaded-and-tattooed hippues in rags marketed for
tourists are the most primitive. Then come yogis, sages and babas. Breaded
hipsters comes next.

As for status symbols to impress waiters and clerks, well, they could be much
subtle and cheaper that a ₹1 lakh bag. Usually, the matching set of clothing
which reflects your personal taste - texture and quality of a fabric, matching
colors, simplicity of being good-enough is enough.

------
nchelluri
Call me closed-minded, but with a title like that I'm not clicking, and I
don't want to see this post on HackerNews. It's just mean.

When I was a kid I was all "oh, I can separate the artist from their art", but
as an old man... fuck that.

~~~
mixologic
Quotation marks would serve to clarify the voice of the article, yet they
would weaken the message of the article.

The Logic of "Stupid Poor People"

As an old man, I learned something by clicking on that.

