
“Poor people don’t plan long-term. We’ll just get our hearts broken” - tormeh
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/21/linda-tirado-poverty-hand-to-mouth-extract
======
falcolas
I feel stupidly lucky that I got to where I am today. I was living in a
friend's apartment with about $100 in "savings" and no job prospects in a town
where I knew one person.

Now, I own a house, work as a software developer and get paid nearly stupid
amounts of money.

Luck, a few good people (Brian, we still appreciate the $100!), and a natural
affinity for computers are all that separate me from working those same
minimum wage jobs and living hand to mouth.

However, having crossed that line in both directions has also made me aware
that even with all of that, I'm still only a few months of unemployment away
from being homeless again. I only hope that the startup I work for doesn't go
under, and that if it does I can find another good paying job.

~~~
twisties
Do you feel the need to remedy this injustice, when, as you claim, the
difference between you and a poor person is luck?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
Across a population this kind of 'bad luck' can have huge economic costs, and
is a massive drag on innovation and productivity.

It's not just about personal stories.

Falcolas might not have been able to borrow $100, and would likely have ended
up somewhere very different.

And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer.

You might think 'There are others' \- and you'd be right.

But the effects scale. If enough people don't get a break, opportunities
shrink across the landscape.

~~~
stegosaurus
'And the startup economy would have been down by one potential developer.'

Not only the startup economy.

Brief thought experiment:

Imagine two people. Person A is a car mechanic. Person B is a software
developer. Neither are employed but both are more skilled and likely more
efficient than each other in their respective fields.

Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B
will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy it,
but because they can't afford to pay each other.

This is a vast oversimplification (in this case, they could just directly
barter and exchange no funds, or even if they did exchange funds $50 would
flow one way and right back the other).

But the economy dies with the middle class. When no-one can afford to partake
in services, we all suffer.

~~~
ahomescu1
> Despite the fact that A needs a website and B needs an oil change, A and B
> will likely end up performing the work themselves, not because they enjoy
> it, but because they can't afford to pay each other.

If they don't have dollars, they can pay each other in IOUs (which aren't
divisible, but otherwise would work fine).

~~~
stegosaurus
Well, that's basically what credit is. You expect to be paid in the future, so
you can buy things now.

Affordability is about more than simply having some means to pay, though.

I often struggle to find a word that fits well here.

The dictionary defines afford to mean: 'to be able to do, manage, or bear
without serious consequence or adverse effect'.

By that standard, some people who can't afford to go to college actually do.
The means are available via loans, but there are serious consequences and they
will be saddled with large amounts of debt. So what's the term for that?

I don't think 'afford' as a proxy for 'strictly possible' is very useful and
I'd be glad to hear of an alternative.

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

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Link to the source:
[http://www.pnas.org/content/110/46/18442.abstract](http://www.pnas.org/content/110/46/18442.abstract)

Relevant quotes from the abstract:

Adults with lower family income at age 9 exhibited reduced ventrolateral and
dorsolateral prefrontal cortex activity and failure to suppress amygdala
activation during effortful regulation of negative emotion at age 24. ... The
findings demonstrate the significance of childhood chronic stress exposures in
predicting neural outcomes during emotion regulation in adults who grew up in
poverty.

------
paganel
> Or what if, God forbid, the car breaks down or you break a bone?

I'm not going to add anything meaningful about "breaking a bone" and universal
healthcare, but when it comes to a car breaking down there's something to be
said about how the American car-culture and its suburban-centered development
is actively at work against America's poor people.

Not sure how that can be remedied in the short- to medium-term, but something
needs to change about how urban planning is done.

~~~
PhantomGremlin
Yea, suburbia is _expensive_. You need to drive everywhere. A tank of gas is
$50, and that's a lot of money even if you're not "poor".

~~~
rhino369
Only if you don't include housing costs and increased costs for stuff like
food and materials. Yuppies (like myself) drive up rent prices anywhere near
public transit.

Ghettos are cheaper than suburbia but the trade off is less security and
selling your kids future down the toilet.

------
rayiner
This bit is great:

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

~~~
zo1
I don't understand how individuals can bring new, innocent life into this
world... With an uncertain economic outlook, or without at least a stable
financial base to care for them.

#Edit: I'd honestly like to hear some comments/feedback about the individuals
that disagree with what I said above.

~~~
rayiner
My wife and I are ambitious people, "planners" from childhood who got the
grades, got the degrees, and got the high-paying jobs. But our daughter, who
was, um, "unplanned," brings us more joy than any of those accomplishments.
And the wonderful things about human existence is that having kids and making
families is accessible to almost everyone.

~~~
pen2l
I suggest people have a baby as soon as they can -- early 20s. The later you
do it, the more problems occur.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#mediaviewer/File:...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome#mediaviewer/File:Down_risk_by_maternal_age.png)
This pictures explain it nicely. But really, there are a lot of other reasons,
scientific literature has a lot to say about that. Don't do it your 30s, do it
in your 20s.

------
swatow
_> I make a lot of poor financial decisions. None of them matter, in the long
term. I will never not be poor, so what does it matter if I don't pay a thing
and a half this week instead of just one thing? It's not like the sacrifice
will result in improved circumstances; the thing holding me back isn't that I
blow five bucks at Wendy's. It's that now that I have proven that I am a Poor
Person that is all that I am or ever will be._

I have a hard time believing this statement. I know that being poor in the US
is very tough, but the author's statement that it is impossible to go from
being poor to not-poor doesn't ring true. For example, doesn't the author
expect that the full time school they are doing is going to have some
financial payoff in the future?

~~~
monk_e_boy
What's the point of saving? One car crash and it's wiped out. You save and
delay the gratification, but it never comes. You save and save and save, then
some bad luck wipes it out. You lose a job. A vet bill. A friend needs a room
and some food.

Or spend the money today on some burgers and a DVD for the kids. Get hugs and
kisses and a full belly.

Poor people aren't stupid. You seem to think they are. She may go to school,
get qualified but it's a huge gamble. And if something happens that means she
has to miss school and doesn't pass the exams, that's a lot of wasted money.
You have to be in a place where a 3 year plan is achievable. Gambling time and
money on self education takes a lot of mental effort. Every day you have to be
prepared to be knackered, poor, time deprive your kids, all for the gamble
that in the future even with the qualification you'll get a better job.

What's the point? Who the hell cares.

~~~
swatow
_> What's the point of saving? One car crash and it's wiped out. You save and
delay the gratification, but it never comes. You save and save and save, then
some bad luck wipes it out. You lose a job. A vet bill. A friend needs a room
and some food._

That is ridiculous. If you hadn't saved and you had the car crash, then you
would have been carless. Instead you were able to use to car

 _> Poor people aren't stupid. You seem to think they are._ Why do you think
that I think poor people are stupid? Do I literally have to agree with
everything any poor person says to avoid this kind of cheap shot?

I agree that the payoff from education may be a gamble, but it was just an
example of the many ways people can become better off.

~~~
shaftoe
I'm amused that your comment is getting voted down, ostensibly by people who
don't agree.

I'll go much farther than you did and say defeatism is for losers. I don't
mean that as a judgement, but as a statement of fact. You'll never get ahead
when you don't see a point. Life is mostly a mental game.

A serious problem for a lot of people (beyond the poor) is that they spend far
more cognitive time thinking about how to justify and feel good about their
circumstances and decisions than how to improve them. Change comes from within
and change is hard.

~~~
tormeh
Beyond the poor that's a feature, not a bug. If you hate your life and you're
not having it objectively terrible then it's your mind that's the problem.
Objectively improving your life will do nothing.

And defeatism may well be unreasonable, but who claimed otherwise? That it's
bad is obvious, and stating it helps nobody. Even the author of the article
knows it's bad and wrong but does it anyway.

~~~
chrishynes
I disagree. Taking right action and objectively improving your life will make
you feel better.

Actions affect emotion. Just like the action of smiling itself has been proven
to make you happier, taking steps to make your life better will impact your
feelings about it.

~~~
Heyr
It only does this in certain cases. It can also negatively impact those who
wouldn't want to do it. You have to factor in a cost to all of these things -
even for something as simple as smiling. For smiling most of the cost is
mental, but it's still there.

I feel like there's a lack of explanation on "effort" that a person can spend.
Like why a person will be able to do some amount of work but then get
incredibly bogged down and not feel like doing more, even though they aren't
really "tired".

------
lifeisstillgood
Slightly tangential but the image of hundreds of people flocking to a free
dentistry service in a giant hall not merely horrified me (look, you are
American, you should realise that the rest of the rich world looks at you the
same way guests at a cocktail party would look at a merchant banker who just
arrived having not changed his clothes or bathed in six months)

Anyway - horrible image. But it does strike me as the likely way forward for
providing affordable health care. I suspect that many of the inefficiencies in
our delivery of healthcare are around throughputs at diagnosis (hard to fix)
at preperTion and delivery of the non drug intervention.

In other words, stop persuading people to go individually for flu jabs, just
tell everyone there will be a fair outside Sainsburys.

------
joelhooks
When our first son was born 17 years ago I was making $10/h. My wife got WIC,
and used medicaid. We told the government that she lived with her mom and that
I was a deadbeat. We needed the help, and my low-wage job would have been
prohibitive. $10/h actually wasn't too bad in '98 for a single dude. I had an
apartment, ate, had utilities paid, with enough left over for beer, weed and
cigarettes.

It was rough, but definitely not hopeless. Not all of the decisions we made
were good (lol, by a long ways), but enough of them were.

I never expected to be poor forever, which makes a huge difference. There were
spans of depression where I felt like giving in and just accepting my lot in
life, but punched through and kept grinding. Thankful for that.

~~~
morgante
> I had an apartment, ate, had utilities paid, with enough left over for beer,
> weed and cigarettes.

That actually sounds pretty great. You covered your necessities and had a few
luxuries. Heck, I make an order of magnitude more than minimum wage, but my
life doesn't sound much more glamorous than that.

If poor people are able to afford food, housing, and small luxuries
(cigarettes), is life really so bad?

~~~
rcoder
If you're making an order of magnitude more than minimum wage that puts you at
$72.50 per hour, or about $145k per year. That might not sound like a lot to
the regulars on this site, but it's almost triple the median US household
income ($52k) and should put you comfortably in the middle class in almost any
developed part of the world.

You also probably don't have to worry about getting sick or injured (health
insurance and sick leave are basically assumed in most careers that pay
>$100k/year), getting access to money (whether savings or credit) for
emergencies, or being able to support a loved one when they have problems.

There's nothing "glamorous" about scraping by month to month, working an
hourly job with no benefits or paid leave, or having to lie to get access to
social services to support your family. It might not be as bad as living in
medieval-era poverty, but it's still miles away from your six-figure
professional lifestyle.

Life can be (and often is!) fine day-to-day when you're poor, but the complete
lack of an effective safety net means the difference between "doing okay" and
"living on the street with no options" is razor-thin.

~~~
morgante
To be clear, I'm well aware that what I make places me comfortably into the
upper middle class.

My point was simply that my life generally doesn't seem much/any better than
joelhooks's ostensibly "poor" life.

I might have health insurance, but I haven't used it once. Even though I have
sick leave at work, I'd probably never take it (preferring to work remotely).

I guess my main point is that we shouldn't lose sight of the advances which
centuries of development have brought us. An order of magnitude income
differential no longer connotes an order of magnitude difference in lifestyle.
At least for young single men, it seems like there's almost no difference in
lifestyle based on salary.

~~~
rcoder
If you honestly believe your lifestyle is no different from someone getting by
on $10 per hour then I doubt there's much I can do to dissuade you. That being
said, I still believe you're underestimating just how much more stability and
confidence you have as a product of your income.

I personally have very clear memories of the years where I worried constantly
about finding and keeping enough work to pay rent, left problems with my
health unaddressed because I couldn't afford to fix them, and stayed in a bad
relationship because my partner had a place to me to stay and a car I could
take to job interviews.

If you had asked me then I would have said my life was fine b/c I had friends,
plenty of cheap beer, and didn't really know any better. Now that I'm also
solidly in the middle class and can afford luxuries like an entire house I
share with just my wife, regular meals out, and leisure travel I would
describe those years as "strained" and "challenging" at best.

~~~
morgante
> If you honestly believe your lifestyle is no different from someone getting
> by on $10 per hour then I doubt there's much I can do to dissuade you.

I guess maybe I'm just not allocating my money intelligently, but it really
doesn't feel like my life is much better than "poor" young people.

My university friends who survive on a $4000/semester stipend don't seem any
less happy or contented than me. If anything, more so.

> much more stability and confidence you have as a product of your income.

Admittedly, I don't really worry about the effect of losing my job. I could
probably sustain myself for a few years off my savings.

But, on the flip side, having a "professional" job is also much more all-
encompassing. I doubt people working at McDonalds frequently wake up with
thoughts about new strategic directions and methods for flipping burgers, but
I am. In exchange for the stability which a high salary brings, I'm always
thinking about work.

~~~
pharke
I think someone flipping burgers at McDonalds would trade waking up thinking
about work for waking up and thinking about how they'll feed their children
any day of the week.

Also, the concept of being able to sustain your current lifestyle for a few
years on your savings alone makes you sound like you're from another planet to
someone making minimum wage with the savings and benefits that entails. It
also doesn't appear to jive with your earlier statement about managing your
money in such a way that your day to day finances would be in any way similar
to someone earning $10 hourly. Where I come from, having enough money for beer
and weed might mean you've got $20 to your name, not a savings account with
enough for rent and expenses for the next 2 years.

Edit:

Your friends at university might appear to have a fairly similar lifestyle to
yours on the measly sum of $4000 per semester given the fact that university
life generally comes accompanied by prepaid meal plans, health insurance,
counselling, housing, on campus services and student discounts. Such amenities
are a far off dream to those below the poverty line.

~~~
morgante
> It also doesn't appear to jive with your earlier statement about managing
> your money in such a way that your day to day finances would be in any way
> similar to someone earning $10 hourly.

I never claimed my finances were similar to someone earning $10/hour. Just my
lifestyle. (The fact that I don't have much to spend money on is part of the
reason I've managed to accumulate extensive savings.)

> university life generally comes accompanied by prepaid meal plans, health
> insurance, counselling, housing, on campus services and student discounts

They do have housing taken care of, but that $4000 is used for meals. While
those fringe benefits are tangible, I don't think they make a major lifestyle
difference considering that most never use health or counseling services

~~~
nitrogen
You're probably right about day-to-day lifestyle differences being rather
small between surviving poor and thriving middle class. The biggest difference
is in the exceptions, both positive and negative. Someone just getting by
won't have the spare cash or leave time to take a vacation, and a single
disaster could put them on the streets if they don't have family or friends to
turn to (which can feel just as shameful as being on the streets). The other
major difference is psychological: the feeling of being trapped in a
precarious situation.

------
gyardley
Sounds like there's not much point in helping the poor, then, because they're
just going to cock it up.

I disagree - I think poor people are indeed capable of making good decisions
and planning long-term - but what other point are you supposed to take away
from her article?

~~~
pharke
The point I took away from the article seemed to be emphasized by these two
statements that she made:

>And honestly, I wouldn’t even mind the degradations of my work life so much
if the privileged and powerful were honest about it. If they just admitted
that this is simply impossible.

>I’m not saying that someone doesn’t have to scrub the toilets around here.
All I’m saying is that maybe instead of being grossed out by the very idea of
toilets, you could thank the people doing the cleaning, because if not for
them, you’d have to do it your damn self.

As a society, we make poverty into an inescapable and self-reinforcing cycle
by attaching such a large stigma to it. The working poor are performing the
work necessary to prop up the rest of our civilization while we spit on them
for holding that station. We need to admit that that attitude is a problem and
then we need to work to change it.

Any honest work can be rewarding in itself but only so long as it is
recognized as honest and valuable work. Part of that recognition must be to
receive fair compensation in the form of a living wage that covers expenses
and allows for saving money towards the future but it also must include
respect from the people that benefit by your services.

If we all had to invest our energies in producing, packaging, and preparing
every morsel of food that passed our lips, cleaning and maintaining every part
of our homes, workplaces, and vehicles, or have a hand in the creation or
maintenance of any of the thousand other parts of our daily lives that must
all exist and function in perfect order for us to simply get on with it, we'd
all be less able to perform the other activities required for the continuance
of our society in its present state.

This is simple division of labour, it's been with us since we chipped our
first flint. The concept is a simple one: either we all survive or none of us
survive. If we all invest even a little bit of effort in keeping that maxim at
the front of our minds I believe we really can have a better world tomorrow
and the day after that. It's only when you begin seeing people as expendable
extras, just another replaceable part, that things begin to fall apart. We're
all human, we all deserve a fair chance, and a second one, so help someone,
say thank you, and stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

------
nkzednan
(Note, I'm a software engineer in California but this is based on what I've
heard from others/read)

Something else that I've heard from other people/read about is how basically
it takes money to save money.

For instance, most of us have bank accounts that don't charge any monthly fee
and we're fine having to keep a minimum of $25 or so in the account. But if
you're poor, that's a lot of money to keep locked up, which is why my guess is
that a lot of people don't have bank accounts. They then have to cash their
checks at places that take a good sized bite out of each pay check. People
living pay check to pay check also likely can't wait the few days it takes for
a bank to clear checks.

It seems like there's got to be a better way of paying people who don't have a
bank account so that they can access the money right away and don't have to
pay fees.

From what I've heard, you can be on food stamps/other assistance but if you
cross a certain line in terms of income you can't qualify anymore, instead of
gradually diminishing as one makes more.

~~~
uiri
> It seems like there's got to be a better way of paying people who don't have
> a bank account so that they can access the money right away and don't have
> to pay fees.

I think it is called "cash". Turning a piece of paper (ie: a paycheque) into
cash costs money and so does turning cash into a piece of paper (ie: a money
order to pay rent or a utility bill). The banking system isn't free. It is
much more profitable for the bank to prey on the poor who have no capital to
offer up and who have no time to research their different banking options than
it is for a bank to offer affordable services to low-income customers. Cash
costs money to mint and print as well but that's hidden in seigniorage, taxes
and inflation.

There are payroll cards (in lieu of cheques) for employees without bank
accounts but, since the card issuer's true customer is the employer, they
often hit employees with high fees for everything which end up costing more
than a bank account would.

------
Mz
Excerpt: _At one chain I was required to sign a contract stating that I was an
at-will employee, that I would be part-time with no benefits, and that if I
took another job without permission I would be subject to termination because
the company expected me to be able to come in whenever they found it
necessary.

And yes, this is legal._

Yeah, that sort of crap needs to stop.

Also, we need to make it possible for average folks to become homeowners
again. Also, this Obamacare crap: I am not a fan. Make it a government benefit
or butt the hell out of whether or not I buy insurance. Thanks.

(In case you missed it, I have been homeless for three years and counting. I
think I have more hope than this woman describes having, but I got that by
walking away from my corporate job. I was able to do that because I was a
military wife for a lot of years. So I still alimony and, in theory, access to
free medical care. I still have things that are kind of a throw back to the
1950's way of life. Plus six years of college and other assets that have given
me maneuvering room that most poor people lack.)

------
chaostheory
> The closest Planned Parenthood [family planning clinic] to me is three
> hours.

> Nobody likes poor people procreating, but they judge abortion even harder.

~~~
jessaustin
_Nobody likes poor people procreating, but..._

Don't go by what they say or how they act: from the decisions they make, it's
clear that TPTB derive a great deal of value from the existence of vast and
increasing numbers of poor people. Sure, they'd probably _prefer_ to just
impoverish more of the middle class, but the procreation of the poor works as
well.

~~~
chaostheory
To better understand her writing, you have to think of it as "how poor people
feel", and not whether or not it fully reflects reality. Also depending in
what part of the country you live, you will be judged harshly for abortion
(and not just by the lower class); even in many parts of California. People
tend to forget that the only liberal parts of CA are the SF Bay Area and the
LA metro.

------
sametmax
I started to read "cell phone", "car" and "kids" and stopped caring. I started
with very few money. Then I manage to have my own company. Then I got broken
after the war in Mali. And when you are young with no money, you don't need a
cell phone, you don't need a car, and you don't make children. You get your
life in order, then you go for the expensive stuff. People think it's normal
to have these. Guys, it's not even normal to have electricity and water :
these are the luxury of 20 % of the world. So stop spending in things you
don't need before you can afford them, then complain.

A car is a luxury. You got bikes, public transport, legs...

Cell phone is a luxury. Yes, even when you are looking for a job. Unless you
can find a phone bill costing 2$/month, which I do.

Kids are a luxury. Not a right. Not a must have. Something you do when you can
give them a decent living. Or you don't make them.

~~~
Riseed
I do not understand the sentiment that poor people shouldn't have cell phones.

Please tell me, how does one get a job in the US without a phone? And when
one's job means being called in on short notice, how does one keep said job
without having a phone?

~~~
jpindar
You don't.

The people who consider cell phones or internet access* as luxuries are stuck
in the past, probably in the time they grew up. They also often speak of flat
screen TVs, laptop computers, and even microwave ovens as being major luxuries
compared to the "normal" equivalent. (Can you even still get a CRT TV?)

*It's extremely common for several poor people to share internet access, but at least one of them has to be paying for it.

