
The Logic of “Stupid” Poor People - michaelochurch
http://tressiemc.com/2013/10/29/the-logic-of-stupid-poor-people/#
======
ahelwer
When debating social justice issues, it is wise to bear in mind that
deconstructing one particular thesis in a vacuum offers little more than
intellectual showboating; much of the social justice narrative describes small
and seemingly-trivial barriers cumulatively forming concrete obstacles. For a
better metaphor, Marilyn Frye writes in _The Politics of Reality_ :

"Cages. Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the
cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you
is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and
down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly
around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one
day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why
a bird would have trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no
physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could
discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it
except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking
at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the
whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you
will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers.
It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of
systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance
to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining
as the solid walls of a dungeon."

This myopic focus seems to be more common on technology forums than elsewhere.
I am interested as to why this is the case. Probably, a technical education
lends itself well to analyzing the validity of individual details but not
reasoning at a structural level.

~~~
lambdaphage
Just to lay my cards on the table: I'm registered as a member of the US Green
Party and have been involved with various left wing activist movements since I
was fifteen. I've also been poor, living in a junkie hotel and doing day labor
for cash. My most upvoted comment on hn (before I ragequit my previous account
(for basically leftist grievances (!))) was one describing what that was like.

Still, I find the intellectual attitude that you've described deeply
unsettling. As you've sketched it, the "social justice narrative[0]" is
unfalsifiable: what claims does your theory of politics actually make about
the world if any given piece of it can be overturned without making a dent in
the theory itself? A theory of social inequality can't be correct in general
without being correct in particular cases. Refuting ( _not_ "deconstructing")
a particular thesis is not "intellectual showboating", it's engaging in
argument. What else is someone who sincerely disagrees with you supposed to
do?

I've seen this happen with depressing regularity: a self-styled social justice
advocate will make a claim, and sometimes that claim will get demolished by an
intelligent opponent. (Yes, this can happen, and it is a portent for the
future of the left that most activists never learn to take a drubbing from a
perceptive conservative.) Rather than taking stock at that point, the social
justice advocate throws up a polysyllabic ink cloud ("institutional",
"systemic" and "societal" seem to enjoy heavy rotation) and jets away. Whether
it is true or not that nebulous social forces conspire to constrain outcomes
for the poor in the way that the social justice advocate believes, I have no
idea why such verbal behavior should be considered convincing.

This is especially frustrating if you actually sincerely think that the left
has good ideas about social policy that should be argued for in earnest and
implemented.

\---

[0] The heavy rhetorical weight placed on the word "narrative" also gives me
goosebumps. What happened to plain old arguments-- a set of propositions
intended to establish (or at least raise the probability of) the truth of a
conclusion? I would hate to think it's because "narratives", unlike arguments,
are impossible to demonstrate or refute.

~~~
ahelwer
The key word here is vacuum. It's pretty easy to come up with compelling
arguments against individual examples of inequality, but these really only
hold up on their own and yes, fall apart at the structural level.

I agree retreating to argue on the structural level is rhetorically weak.
That's all that can really be said against it, and it's unfortunate, because
someone saying how really _you_ are a member of the oppressed (as seen in
white supremacist and MRA groups) is much more alluring than some intangible
narrative about structural inequality.

I say narrative because that's the form it has taken, and indeed had to take.
Mary Wollstonecraft couldn't spend her time arguing point by point in a
council chamber. She wrote books, compelling novels which had to fight
viciously for every inch of ground on which they stood.

You've seen how easily people convince themselves that gripes of oppression
are baseless, today, 200 years after _A Vindication of the Rights of Woman_.
We've had academics write and study and provide rhetorical tools for
generations now, building a narrative, because that is what is needed. To
truly argue against it, it must be met on that same narrative ground.

------
lmg643
I will agree the value of a put-together appearance is valid, in many
contexts. and i wouldn't take from that at all.

However ... it's ridiculous to use this to defend a $2,500 handbag purchase.
the purchase was inadvisable at best.

marshall's, target, JCP etc have a massive business strategy around making
sophisticated looks available on a low budget. so there are plenty of ways to
accomplish the objective of self respect, presentation and budget.

there's an old essay by tom wolfe called "mau mauing the flak catchers" \-
watching the CEO of barney's defending himself, I think that fits just about
perfectly.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_&_Mau-
Mauing_the_F...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Chic_&_Mau-
Mauing_the_Flak_Catchers)

~~~
IanDrake
I agree. Two different things being discussed as one.

1) Everyone should have at least one outfit that is super classy. A cheap
solution is a Salvation Army or Goodwill store in a nice part of town.

2) People who live on the dole and buy things they clearly don't need or
deserve. Rocking an iPhone 5 while using your food stamp debit card at the
grocery store to buy junk food is the typical "Stupid" poor person move most
people hate to see. There's no justification for that.

~~~
Nate75Sanders
Man, the iPhone 5 really is not a very good example here.

If you wear your super classy outfit to an interview AND you have the iPhone 5
instead of a prepaid Android phone (or worse -- a prepaid non-smartphone),
it's going to show that you "belong" and that you're not poor.

Some people really do pay attention to what kind of phone you have,
particularly for these gateway-straddling jobs that the author talks about in
the article.

~~~
MrZongle2
Counterpoint: after the novelty of wearing the super classy outfit and waving
the iPhone 5 wears off once you have a job, what _else_ do you now have to
purchase -- outside your means -- to convince your co-workers that you
"belong"?

It would be cheaper to look for a job in an environment that is more
interested in what you can _do_ rather than what you _tote_.

That is, after all, what most of us end up doing.

~~~
Nate75Sanders
That's not a counterpoint in poor-person logic. It's a counterpoint in you-
the-guy-who-has-more-correct-assumptions logic.

This is what I'm trying to get across with my posts on this topic.

People keep using reasoning from within a higher-class group where you already
know the rules and assumptions of the game. The whole point is that the people
below don't.

------
sveron
Beautiful analysis of privilege, class signifiers and race.

Technology culture and employment in the United States is dominated by
straight white males, usually with some form of class and economic privilege--
people who haven't had to navigate within their society with an extreme
outsider status--but there are welcome signs of a growing critical self
awareness.

Over the years on HN, I've seen many posts questioning the economic value of a
four year college education, particularly an education in the humanities. This
right here is a great post to keep in your pocket the next time someone says
something like that.

~~~
cobrausn
And yet she shows the barrier to entry for a woman to be _other women in HR_
who were of the same race. How is 'critical self awareness' of straight white
males going to help that?

I've talked about this before at length, but assigning the term 'privilege'
exclusively to 'straight white males' is fairly intellectually dishonest. The
problem is bigger than that - our culture values _behaving_ like a 'normal
person', our definition of 'normal' just happens to have a lot of white people
in it. Some poor white people living in trailers with heavy accents and
unkempt clothes would have had (and do have) similar problems.

~~~
potatolicious
I don't think you two are really disagreeing.

Privilege is not exclusive to straight white males, it just so happens that in
this country, at this moment, straight white males enjoy an order of magnitude
more of it than everyone else. It becomes convenient to point at the largest
elephant in the room instead of fully qualifying the point.

But white privilege, straight privilege, and all other forms of privilege
affect not just those who have it, but everyone else around them. The barrier
to entry for this woman was other women in HR, of the same race - who have
internalized and normalized straight/white/male/etc privilege.

Normalization _is_ privilege. Without normalization you don't have privilege -
you don't have thoughts like "that's not a black guy job", or "that guy's too
fruity to interact with my clients". Privilege _is_ the unfair treatment of
people based on their deviation from a perceived norm. The perceived norm may
be perceived even by people who are on the losing end of the particular
proposition - whether it is their race, gender, orientation, or other.

~~~
dyno12345
When one thinks of judging people by choice of fabric combination or wearing
specific designers, "internalizing and normalizing" straight white male
doesn't exactly come to mind. I think there are limits to how much this idea
can explain.

------
vinhboy
While I agree with the sentiment, I don't think her arguments are very strong.

I personally think people make bad decisions to buy things or do things not on
the premise of it being an "investment", but because most of us are very weak.

We do the things we do because we are victims to advertising and peer
pressure. You think they spend billions on advertising for nothing?

If you read this and you are thinking, "No I am not." You are 1) in denial 2)
above average. If you are above average, then you should realize averages
exist because half of the people are below it.

~~~
DanWaterworth
> then you should realize averages exist because half of the people are below
> it.

Only true of median.

~~~
Qom
I think that the colloquial use of the term "average" actually means the
median. That's how I have seen it used, anyway.

~~~
maxerickson
No, people usually have the arithmetic mean in mind.

~~~
Swizec
People have the arithmetic mean in mind, but their intuition of "average" is
actually the median, or even more commonly the modus.

When somebody says "Average people are X", they usually mean "Most people I've
encountered are X", which is the modus. Hell, I just did that in this exact
sentence!

~~~
Qom
I like how we've totally ignored the guy's arguments due to some technicality
in his post. That's Hacker News for you!

------
MattGrommes
One of the hard parts for me to understand about articles like this is the
addition of race into a social calculation that may not have included race. If
I see somebody I'm hiring has a clean car (one of the examples in the
article), I'm not thinking "Great, a black person acting white by having a
clean car, I'm hiring her", I'm thinking "Great, a tidy person with a clean
car". I see this a lot. Obviously there are people who think the first way and
I'd wager almost every person of color deals with these people every day so
it's probably hard not to do that. But putting assumptions like that on every
social interaction seems problematic to me. But as a white man I of course
have absolutely no real sense (outside of reading and friends) of how it is to
live as a person of color so what do I know. Just thinking out loud.

~~~
DanielStraight
Please understand I am just trying to explain a viewpoint, not necessarily
state my personal beliefs.

I think the argument is that you won't notice when a white male is tidy. You
notice a black person with a clean car because subconsciously you don't expect
it. So even a positive thought or comment (a tidy person with a clean car)
becomes racial because it would never have come up with a white male.

See also: "articulate"

~~~
theorique
I know some people think that way, and racialize everything.

I admit that I just don't _get_ this point of view. I really don’t. I aim, and
generally succeed, at being as color blind as possible.

To me a person with a clean car and nice clothes is a person with a clean car
and tidy clothes. I don't get surprised when that person turns out to be a
black female or a white man.

Same thing with a person at the opposite end of the spectrum - i.e. a nasty
car and dirty clothes. While one could stereotype blacks in this situation
(“ghetto”), or whites (“hillbilly”), why would you do that?

------
kirpekar
I read the whole article and do not agree. Here in Silicon Valley the
importance of appearances has become marginal. Yes, you have to be clean,
presentable, but that's it. After that you need the skills, talent, knowledge
and aptitude to perform your job. And you need that everyday, to keep your
job, in this hyper-competitive environment.

I was a poor starving immigrant student at one point. I did fine without even
mildly expensive clothes, shoes or cars. I've also hired poor resource-less
college kids. Anecdotal, but the best workers (in our technical field) were
the ones who cared the least about appearances.

~~~
slg
Silicon Valley is still somewhat an exception to the rule about appearances.
In what other area do the rich people dress exactly like the poorest? Remember
the hubbub when Zuckerberg wore a hoodie to a meeting regarding the Facebook
IPO. That might be laughed off in Silicon Valley but I know many people in
other parts of the country that would view it as insulting for someone to show
up to a business meeting wearing something like that.

~~~
Qom
What's insulting here is that Zuck is trying to keep the "hoodie-guy" image
despite his unimaginable wealth. You can't have the cake and eat it.

~~~
tghw
I'm sorry, are you saying Zuck should be required to dress his socioeconomic
class?

~~~
Qom
No. I just think it's posturing on his part. He's pretending to be something
he's not, so that people see the friendly brogrammer instead of the ambitious
"They trust me — dumb fucks" CEO who disregards privacy.

~~~
swamp40
Don't you think that maybe it's the other 99.9% of people that are
"posturing"?

Some people just _rebel_ against the "norm" of using clothing to represent
their socioeconomic status - money or no money.

~~~
balabaster
Some people rebel just because "f___ you, who are you to tell me what I can
and can't do?" It has nothing to do with anything else.

------
Qom
This article is unconvincing at best. She claims that you can only look
presentable on a tight budget, which is patently false. You can look classy
with affordable items: it only takes a tiny bit of basic fashion knowledge and
a little more money than for the K-Mart option.

I've seen plenty of people who bought brand items but used them in a vulgar or
trashy way: the result was that you could immediately identify them as poor,
defeating the whole purpose of the "investment".

Some researchers have outlined that poverty is debilitating and impairs
decision making, but there clearly are some poor people who contribute to
their own fate. Advertising is partly to blame, but most of the responsibility
rests with them not to buy ludicrous products in the hope of some inchoate
recognition from others. Simply accusing the "white male privileged life of
the mind" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

~~~
zasz
If you're an outsider to a social group, how would you know how to imitate
them cheaply and convincingly? Your point about people buying brand items and
using them in a "vulgar" way actually just reinforces how hard it can be for
poor people to look presentable. They literally don't know what they're doing.
And you expect them to dress well in a way that can fit their budget? That's
unreasonable.

------
ChikkaChiChi
Firstly, you are dismissisive to the point of bigotry if you ever refer to
someone as stupid, I don't care if they are rich or poor.

And while I'm all for personal responsibility and accountability...how many
classes in public schools teach things like money and lifestyle management?
Home Ec? Pretty sure all I learned there was how to cook and omlette.

This country refuses to blame the parents yet we do nothing to as a society to
prepare future generations for the real world. Instead we teach to a bullshit
testing standard that has taken the initiative out of the hands of our
teachers during a time in history when creativity and drive is so vital to the
global economy.

Instead ignorant people post ignorant messages about how some lady with a
bunch of kids in a welfare line is sporting a Gucci bag.

Stop trying to stereotype the problem and start trying to look how
collectively we can benefit one another through education and understanding.

~~~
coldcode
Exactly this. We don't teach what we want people to know as adults, unless you
realize many politicians would rather have ignorant populous they can lie to
with impunity. We should teach basic economics from early years until they
graduate and can't be fooled any more.

~~~
antsar
I don't mean to be a pedantic jerk, and I'm only mentioning it because I would
want to be corrected similarly: I think the word you meant to use was
'populace', not 'populous'.

~~~
Qom
You're like a Canadian grammar Nazi: punctilious yet courteous.

~~~
balabaster
That's because it's not done to be a jerk, but to be edumucative eh? :P

------
makerops
Anyone who wants to "belong" to a league of people who would waste 2500$ on a
handbag IS stupid. Whether they are poor or not is immaterial. It is also a
huge leap to say that being "presentable" is the same as wasting money you do
not have on status symbols. They aren't the same thing.

~~~
ddoolin
You're assuming there's no derived benefit from belonging to that league of
people, but she makes the case that there is a benefit (or benefits) to it,
despite admitting it's kind of lame.

It's not the strongest argument, I'll give you that, but I wouldn't know.

~~~
makerops
I am not making that assumption really; people that are able to really provide
someone with benefits, whether it is knowledge, capital, power etc, would
scoff at, and see right through the 2500$ handbag. My point being, either 1.
you think you can access a level of person that will help you out by owning a
2500$ handbag (stupid) or 2. That there is a group of people that will allow
you into their social sphere because you own a 2500$ hand bag, in the end
people who think like this in that social sphere, will not be able to do
anything for you.

------
DanielBMarkham
Oof.

Another one of these "I'm a member of special group that you can never
understand. We are put down by other groups. I am going to emote a bit to make
you feel guilty." I hate these things because they defy honest feedback.
Instead, it's jump on the bandwagon or be called names. So I'm calling
bullshit on this general type of article on HN. Having said that, I find this
article as good as any of the example of the genre.

Remember, this article is about poverty. As such, it fails miserably to make
its case. Yes, people buy things to socially signal. Yes, many poor people buy
expensive status symbols.

But there's a lot to be said for attitude. Most of life is just showing up and
having a positive attitude -- far more than what kinds of boots you're wearing
or how much you spent on your coat. Yes, like most people I'll happily make
spot judgments within about 5 seconds of seeing you. But those judgments are
not based on fashion. They're based on hygiene, facial expression (are you
happy? That makes me happy), demeanor, and body language.

A much better social signal is elimination of dialect, as the author mentions.
Every culture has a "high" language and several medium or low languages. So
get rid of that deep southern dialect if you want to make a good impression.
Costs nothing. Instead of spending a lot on an expensive suit, pick up
something wearable at the local Goodwill store. Practice entering a room,
walking, sitting down, and chatting in front of a video camera.

Social signalling is just the way we're made. But it doesn't have a damned
thing to do with being poor. Or rather the signal in this case is easily gamed
in very cheap ways. At least for purposes of getting out of poverty.
Obviously, if you're selling stocks, the game is played at a different level.
But even then, there are lots of tactics that don't involve writing big
checks.

In short, don't be a putz. Instead, cultivate inside of yourself something of
real value, and make sure that the things that you have and do allow that to
shine through.

------
wyager
>aping the white male privileged life of the mind

Oh look: another racist, sexist, and poorly written complaint piece
masquerading as some kind of intelligent discourse.

------
altoz
Article strikes me as too much rationalization and not enough reflection. To
one person, a $2500 bag may signal that you're middle class. To another, it
may signal you're really bad with financial decisions. I don't think that
argument that it's a survival mechanism really holds as it's really
speculative and not supported by any data.

------
emhart
I cannot speak to the gendered or racial points (white male, here), but during
my time in NYC I experienced first hand the escalation of opportunity that
tracked with my escalation of signaling clothing and accessories.

I was lucky enough to be poached from my job as a movie theater
cleaner/attendant by the manager of a 5th Avenue Kenneth Cole. At the time I
was struggling and would eventually end up temporarily homeless, and I didn't
have the clothes required to work at the store. The manager insisted I at
least have 1 clean, all black outfit that was brand new. I went to H&M and did
exactly what the author here describes, I skipped meals to afford it. I paid
my share of the rent late, but I got the outfit and I started the job.

Given the opportunity, I started to excel and as we were paid commission, my
financial outlook started to improve, but I was still in serious debt and
couldn't get enough hours to get over what seemed like an endlessly far away
threshold of financial stability. Right before Christmas we had a regional
manager come in and watch us work for a few days, as he was leaving he gave me
~$200 of "KC Cash" which was used to reward talented employees. I could use
it, with my discount, to buy things we sold. I was so excited because it meant
I'd be able to buy Christmas presents for my family.

Instead, my manager insisted I buy clothes and accessories for myself so I
would be more presentable in the store. I went along with his demand and
bought myself a couple outfits and a nice leather portfolio messenger bag, and
gave my family nothing for the holidays, which they all understood.

In January, commissioned sales on moderately high end clothing drops off
dramatically, as did my hours. Suddenly the threshold of stability vanished
into the distance again and I needed to make a change. I wanted 40 hours, I
had been without health insurance for a couple of years, and I wanted the
chance to pay down my debts and move forward with my life. I started asking
around and applying to office jobs for which I had no experience and no
degree.

I landed an interview at a data processing company and I wore my Kenneth Cole
clothes, I had a copy of my resume that a friend put together on their
computer tucked into my KC Messenger bag. And when I was hired for a job I
knew nothing about and had no prior experience with, it was from a pool of
applicants who weren't signaling their status as strongly as I was. I remember
how confident I felt, sitting in their lobby with a dozen other people around
me, none dressed as well, and the few who tried not having items of the same
quality.

As I've developed more marketable skills (graphic design, web dev, etc.) I've
been able to signal less, but the article struck a chord with me. I remember
going hungry to get the better job, skipping the christmas gifts for family to
get the clothes my job required and that eventually let me get my foot in the
door to a better life.

~~~
consultant23522
I'm also a white male and reading the article I kept thinking "The requirement
for speaking and dressing well doesn't have anything to do with your skin
color." The old adage about dressing for the job you _want_ is true for
everyone. I'm not suggesting that people of various colors, or women, or gays,
or whatever other group does not face a greater degree of difficulty in these
areas, but if you want to be one of the ducks, you gotta walk, talk, and act
like a duck.

~~~
mcv
It might not be related to skin color, but it is related to being poor. Or
appearing poor, versus appearing respectable.

I also think it depends a lot on the job. Jobs just above the low-end might
have a stronger interest in filtering out the supposed low-lifes, than a job
that requires a good education before you can even be considered. I can dress
however I like, partially because the dress code for coders isn't terribly
strict, and partially because my CV sells me much better than any suit could
possibly do.

On the other hand, maybe I would be able to get a better job if I wore a suit.
But because my income is good enough, I can afford to ignore jobs that require
nice clothes. But if you're poor, every step up is a step away from poverty,
and you can't afford to ignore that.

As for skin color, I think black people are still much more strongly
associated with poverty than white people, so for them, avoiding the
appearance of poverty might still be more important than for a white person of
similar wealth. Anything to dodge the stigma.

------
theorique
The article raises a good point, but it also frames the dichotomy as an
either-or question.

In other words, is there no middle ground between buying an Hermès Birkin bag
and dressing in rags? At least in the US, discount stores plus some fashion
sense can compensate to some degree for raw dollars and a personal shopper.

Where I think the upper class pulls away from the lower class is in access to
experience at a young age. Except for very rare exceptions, children are of
the social class of their parents, and tend to have the experiences associated
with that class.

------
JonSkeptic
>We could, as my grandfather would say, talk like white folks. We loaned that
privilege out to folks a lot.

I think that speaking well, or being articulate, is not a privilege but an
ability. It is not an ability that everyone has, but it is an ability that
almost anyone can acquire with practice. This is true both in verbal and
digital communication.

If you are not articulate, you will be at a disadvantage throughout your life.
Period. The color of your skin has nothing to do with it.

~~~
sanskritabelt
It's kind of interesting that you equate 'talk[ing] like white folks' with
'speaking well' and 'being articulate.' Why do you think that is?

~~~
itchyouch
cuz I been done dat, and you know, like dat idea where, you know, it's like,
when I been tryin', but it ain't gud nuff 4 dem, cuz dey white foke be thinkin
dat I can't do it when I can!

versus

Because I've done that, and you know, the idea where, I-have-been-trying-but-
it-isn't-good-enough, makes them think that I can't do it when I can.

versus

The impression I left with them portrayed a lack of capability, when in-fact,
that was not the case. I felt it unfair, that I may have been the recipient of
a snap-judgement and to add insult to injury, I did not have the opportunity
to re-impress upon them my talent.

A lot of people equate speaking-white with [more-]proper sentence structure ,
but the true differentiator in articulative ability is an expansive vocabulary
capable of conveying in-intricate-detail or not, the abstract ideas necessary
to communicate on a team.

------
adamzerner
Getting a nice outfit or two is probably a good investment. I guess it helps
you deal with bureaucrats and job interviews and stuff.

But what about the rest of the "investments" poor people make? Are they all
worth it?

To what EXTENT do poor people make good decisions? THAT is the real question
here, and it isn't even being asked.

------
randywaterhouse
Incredulity reflects how people really believe that other people may, in fact,
operate in some sort of rational world. When we think of ourselves, for the
most part, we tend to think we would make rational decisions in all
circumstances we were faced in, especially those we are NOT in.

Irrationality of consumers is great for the retail economy, though, and while
it defies years of economic logic, behavioral economics has been in the
spotlight for many things these days, more so than simple rational-consumer
theory.

(perhaps it's simply the logic of smart poor people in a stupid/deranged
society?)

------
ksab
The marketing machine behind many brands is highly effective at establishing
"status". The marketers place their products across multiple media platforms
and those around you simply cannot escape its reach.

While I agree that $2500 on a purse is ridiculous, some less expensive brand
signalling across multiple pieces of clothing might be equally effective. I am
reminded of this experiment using the Lacoste and Hilfiger logos:
[http://www.economist.com/node/18483423](http://www.economist.com/node/18483423)

------
tunesmith
I think one of the hardest systems to break out of is that of the "vicious
cycle". It's very challenging when outputs feed into each other like that.

What I remember about being poorer is that vicious cycles are far more common
when you are poor. You need the used car to be able to get to the job that
will give you the money to afford the used car. The struggles of poverty are
full of cycles like that.

The only way to break out of a vicious cycle is to shock the system, which
tends to mean an asymmetric infusion of force - in poverty's case, that is
usually the form of cash (or debt). It's the sort of action that is traumatic,
and it often looks like it doesn't make sense. It's usually a short-term pain
in exchange for the hopes of long-term improvement. "Breaking the cycle" is
usually a traumatic, difficult action.

Now, I don't know much about buying a $2500 purse - it's hard to defend
something so specific. But I do know that the forces that break cycles _can_
look ridiculous or shameful in some way. A sudden windfall that you didn't
"deserve", accepting help from a stranger in a way that feels humiliating,
being selfish in a way that is not accepted in your social circle, showing
"status", etc.

I am just reluctant to judge those choices from the outside, because I firmly
believe that the poor have to deal with these cycles more than people of
means, and that sometimes it takes a desperate act to break out of them.

------
S_A_P
The other day, I was hanging out with my uncle, who is a devoted hi-fi
nut.(like tubes and lps and voodoo cables kinda hi-fi nut) He took me to a
fellow 'enthusiasts' home who has spent the kind of money on a hi-fi system
that I couldn't see happening even if I were a multi billionaire. This guy had
the $160,000 US msrp(though he got them at the bargain price of only $60,000
plus a trade of some other equipment) Focal Grande Utopia EM(for electro
magnet being used on the subwoofer) [http://www.focal.com/en/utopia-
iii/184-grande-utopia-em-3544...](http://www.focal.com/en/utopia-
iii/184-grande-utopia-em-3544050698000.html)

He also had 750watt tube amps that were approximately 3x3 cubes on his floor
and surprisingly for being valve amps of that magnitude didn't create the heat
of the sun. He had a dedicated power circuit installed by the utility company
so that he could separately condition and wire everything to use only the best
10,000 dollar cables available.

While this guy was certainly well off, his home probably more than doubled in
value when he took that stereo inside the front door. He was retired and didnt
need a large home, and this was an older 2500-3000 sq ft home in Dallas.(which
is still somewhat reasonable per sq ft, compared to say silicon valley) This
guy was SOO proud of his stereo, that he has listening parties every tuesday
night to show it off. Sure it sounded good, but as I said, even if my last
name was Gates, Buffett or Zuckerberg I dont think that would ever be on my
radar as a purchase decision. In many ways I think this persons stereo and an
indigent person buying a 2500 dollar purse are the same impulse. Both seem
horribly frivolous, but who are we to judge really??

~~~
theorique
The clear dividing line is - can the person truly afford it?

If a person spends an absurd amount of money _that he has_ (i.e. _that he
actually earned and saved_ ) on something that seems crazy to most people,
that's OK - he's making a personal choice with personal funds (i.e. hi-fi
enthusiast man)

On the other hand, a person with a minimum wage job making the decision to buy
a $2500 purse out of some speculation that it will help her make the jump to
the next level? Frankly, that just seems foolish. Why not take $200 for a
purse, $200 for a new suit?

It’s not the shopping for image and upward mobility that bothers people - that
decision actually makes some sense.

The problem arises when that shopping crosses the line from reasonable
spending that a person can afford and/or justify, into a place that’s
completely insane and truly unaffordable.

------
ctdonath
There is a difference between investing money in quality goods as tools &
means of improving one's condition, vs. squandering money in luxury goods with
no reasonable expectation of return on the expense. The author points directly
at this difference without recognizing it.

------
nickff
I read the first half of this piece as a (strong) case against the
administrative discretion and power of the bureaucracy. The second half seems
to be a rather sad and puzzling anecdote, whose ramifications I do not fully
comprehend.

------
Casseres
I don't care if someone has a $2,500 handbag. It's whether or not they have a
$1 attitude or a $2,500 attitude - that I care about and primarily judge
people on.

The author's mother had the right attitude (the determination) to help her
neighbor. I know several people who can get things done and get what they
want. They aren't rich or buy expensive things, they just have the
determination to get an answer, find the right person, discover the right
process, etc.

I think the author associated correlation with causation.

------
cafard
There is a good deal I disagree with in the post, and there is one point that
I think is missing.

Most of us on HN have usually lived in a world with a margin of security,
where $1 saved at the end of the week might be $1.05 this time next year.
Below a certain level of security, that's not something one can count on. It
could just be another $1 swept away in the next disaster. Someone who has seen
enough bust cycles will likely get into the habit of spending it while it's
there.

------
chflamplighter
The old chestnut, "Fake it till you Make it" comes to mind.

In some cases this can be helpful, ie pretending to follow the Champions
League to get along with the fellows in the office, but following this as a
blueprint for life can hurt much more than it helps with tons of unintended
consequences(over spending, loss of your true identity, being a liar.....)

------
brudgers
One of my mentors, the late David Crane FAIA, clearly articulated how to
understand what poor folks want. They want the same things as folks who ain't.
Better than nothing, starving and shivering aside, means the same to them as
it does to me.

------
medium
This entire article could really be shortened to one simple sentence: "Poor
people buy expensive things because it makes them FEEL rich for a moment."

~~~
Djehngo
Only it couldn't because that's not even close to what the article was saying.

It was pointing out that looking the part gives opportunities which might
otherwise be closed. Therefore spending your meagre savings buying fancy
clothes can be seen as an investment.

I'm not addressing the validity of the article's point vs yours, but the
summary was not correct.

------
peterwwillis
NEWS FLASH: People treat different people differently. Do we really have to
explain to adults how prejudice works?

------
aswath87
It is unfortunate that we have to spend on these useless status symbols to
open doors. Ugh humans...

------
headShrinker
An equally good question is why to poor people vote republican? Because they
want to belong. And through financial osmosis people who vote republican
become rich, right? That is the thinking anyway.

~~~
psychotik
Wait, where did you read that poor people vote republican? I would've guessed
otherwise.

~~~
mercuryrising
"Lower-income and less educated whites also have shifted substantially toward
the Republican Party since 2008. The GOP has largely erased the wide lead
Democrats had among white voters with family incomes less than $30,000." [0]

Although the graphs on [1] tell a slightly different story.

[0] - [http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-
the-...](http://www.people-press.org/2012/08/23/a-closer-look-at-the-parties-
in-2012/) [1] - [http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/26/161841771/how-
inco...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/26/161841771/how-income-
divides-democrats-republicans-and-independents)

~~~
refurb
White people only make up 72% of the population. You can't dismiss the other
28%.

------
SloughFeg
Good to see hackers care about SOCIAL JUSTICE now.

------
dnautics
what's "half a PhD"?

------
AsymetricCom
I love this headline. I'd also love to see one about Evil Rich People to get
both sides of the coin.

------
goggles99
There is a big fallacy with the reasoning behind this article. I grew up in
impoverished areas (both the inner city, and in rural areas) with the typical
high minority population. I have observed a LOT of poor people and their
spending habits. Here are my thoughts.

(I am not disputing the claim of the author's story and that experience, I am
merely pointing out that his example is not the case most of the time.)

It is true that a very small minority of people dress and talk nicely because
they realize that they will be treated better by the middle and upper class.
Now in this group, some spend lavish amounts of money (like in the article),
and some shop at thrift stores and/or buy knock off designer purses, belts,
ETC. This fact alone blurs the argument that the author is presenting. It is
very possible (and proven so) to live in poverty in America and dress well by
choosing alternative resources.

The other (and more devastating) counter argument that applies to other poor
people is merely by observation of what the status symbols that many in these
groups purchase.

Let me use the example that was laid out in the article. The typical poor
black women/man in a white world scenario. Well then why do the majority of
poor black men and women who make expensive status symbol purchases look
ghetto and drive "ghetto" cars? I don't mean beat up and worn out clothes and
cars, I mean the style of clothing/jewelry and pimped out cars. These same
people aren't talking "nicely" either. Their heavy use of
Ebonics/Redneck/Slang and constant expletives while wearing their gold chains,
starter athletic jerseys and Le-Brons (expensive basketball shoes) ETC. Tell a
different story. They are seeking status among their piers, not the
middle/upper class that they envy. They are not doing it to help them work
their way up economically. It is in fact keeping them down. How are they
better off overall now? They could have saved that money and invested it on
going to school or moving to an area of better geographic opportunity. Now
instead they just look like more expensively dressed thugs.

My personal belief is that most poor people live for today. They don't have
long term goals and plans. They were never taught good habits like saving up
money and conveying to the non-minority class that they don't have a ghetto
mentality or live in the rap/hip hop culture (during job interviews ETC).

They have no hope, because they have no vision or dreams. All that they
typically observe is their small world and the twisted fantasy of
television/movies/commercials. Sure, it feels great to go into a department
store and feel wealthy for a day, wear expensive things and feel better about
yourself, but most poor people buying designer status symbols - this is what
it is really all about. Living a fantasy with no real benefit to their actual
social, economic, or productive member of society status.

~~~
itchyouch
This is definitely spot-on.

