4 Things Politicians Will Never Understand About Poor People

Post Reply New Topic

I admire people who do take time out for self-denial so that at least they know SOMETHING of what it's like to live like poor people. The trouble is rich kids such as you described KNOW that there are prescribed timetables for their quasi-penitence. Poor people don't have that same assurance, nor are they able to just stop being homeless whenever they feel like it.

In my own experience, I went without food for an extended period of time. It wasn't to identify with hungry or starving people, although it did allow me to experience some of the same physical and mental effects of starvation. Even now my diet is still severely restricted. But I think if I identify with anyone through the experience, it's closer to anorexics than with people for whom food is unavailable. Those of us, even some of us who really are impoverished yet just blessed enough to own inexpensive property outright, who have food and shelter or at least the means to get it really have no right to say we identify with those less fortunate.

However, this is what I say: If you want to experience hunger and starvation, fine. If you want to spend a night or two on the sidewalk, fine. But if you come from any level of privilege and genuinely want to get down on a homeless or starving person's level, put them up in an inexpensive (but clean) motel for a night or a weekend, buy them some clothes if their own clothes are worn out, buy them a meal or two from a fast-food place (keeping up energy and protein is likely a higher priority than proper nutrition), and supply them with different canned food items that will last them for a few weeks--all the while doing without the finer luxuries yourself or even going without food yourself once or twice a week. I say "inexpensive" not because poor people are undeserving of expensive treats or fine dining, but because their concerns are more with necessity than luxury (though I'm sure that if you can afford to do that, it doesn't hurt, either). I believe that self-denial is an important part of spiritual and personal growth. But if your point in self-denial is to get on the same level as those for whom basic necessities we take for granted are scarce, then put some force behind denying yourself necessities by taking portions that you'd normally reserve for yourself and give to those who have genuine needs.


I have trouble sympathizing with people in those situations. First of all, getting an adequate college degree for most career tracks doesn't cost "hundreds of thousands of dollars." I understand that law school and med school are a bit different, but doctors and lawyers can reasonably expect a tremendous return on their investment within a year or two that can pay those "hundreds of thousands" in student loans in less than 5 years. So, people who end up in those situations are just stupid. The whole student loan thing is a big racket, anyway, and should always be avoided.

I'm not "hundreds of thousands of dollars" in debt, was state schooled all the way, and racked up $50k in student loans from out-of-state tuition. So when I say people are being stupid for accumulating enormous debts and making unrealistic career choices, I'm including myself with those people.

When people get sick and tired of making stupid decisions and living stupid pipe dreams, they start doing something about it. That doesn't mean abandoning your dreams of having a career in your desired field of interest. I'm keeping my hand in the music business like I always have. I'm just willing to be flexible and adjust according to whatever skill set I have that is needed the most. My big dream was to play clarinet and write music for the rest of my life. Well, that didn't work out. So I taught in the classroom for 5 years. That didn't work out, either. So I ended up teaching piano lessons. I had some success and failures there, but the good thing about going into business on my own is I can't get fired. There is interest in violin instruction but few active violinists in the area willing to teach. Well, I'm a clarinetist who teaches piano...what the heck? Let's do something else where we have no idea what we're doing! (I did take a string methods course in college, so I'm no more inept than any other music teacher. The difference between me and other teachers is I'm willing to take the chance to fall back on my education. Most non-string instrumental music teachers are afraid to try). Meanwhile, I have a part-time paying church gig and play in local bands every now and then. I do cocktail piano for fundraisers. I play weddings, funerals, whatever. I've only gotten paid to write music ONCE, but obviously this doesn't have to be the only time that happens. I've finally found a songwriter to write arrangements for, which might eventually pay off one day...who knows? And I saved up enough money to invest in a PA system. With a little more money I can get just enough equipment to outfit small bands in small venues and get paid to run sound.

And all this from a music education degree and master's degree in music composition. Who cares if it's not my dream job? If I can make time for another part time job, like a night shift/early morning shift and not necessarily related to music, an average extra $30/day for 5 days/wk would come pretty close to getting all my loans paid off in 5 years--assuming that I can also build my client base and get more gigs, and for solo gigs I just need to advertise better.

"Normal" people don't think that way. Nobody just hands you a job because you hold a MBA. Your best bet any time if you really want to be a leader in your field is start your own business or private practice. Run a tight ship, build your wealth, start another business, repeat, build your reputation in the community, do consulting work for other local businesses, revise your CV, and THEN apply to the kinds of big firms you want to work for.

And more important than that, don't graduate high school and go to college without a plan: Realistic educational goals that help you prepare for the marketplace, affordable college at reasonable level to help you reach those goals, and some means of paying for college without going into debt. There are work-study programs, local part-time jobs, and cheaper housing than on-campus dorms. Instead of working on your social life, focus all your spare time studying. You're going to lose a lot of sleep and miss a lot of class partying. Why not make use of all that party time writing papers and studying for exams instead?

But, no, "normal" people rack up obnoxious debts not just paying for school but in drinking and socializing, missing class because they're hung over or stayed out all night, and sleeping in on weekends when they could be catching up on library time. And when they get out of school, they go chasing after that "big break" that never comes because they aren't willing to make their own breaks or allow flexibility in using their skill sets in other productive ways. And if they're lucky to get that big break, they take out obnoxious mortgages on 5-bedroom houses they don't need, expensive car notes, and credit card bills out the wazoo. The bank takes the house and sues for the difference. The repo man gets the car and the auto finance company sues for the difference. And if someone takes out an obnoxious loan for business overhead, the bank or banks providing those loans can call in those loans at the worst possible times. Even if you make it big right out of college, you can still go from rich to broke overnight.

The crazy thing is that this is considered "normal." I used to hate it when people called me "weird." Maybe I am weird. But this weird guy has two vehicles that are paid for, a house that is paid for, credit cards that got paid off and CLOSED years ago, and cut a deal with the student loan people to pay back loans based on income (just a temporary measure to get them to back off...I don't want to stay poor for 20 years just so I don't have to pay my loans back only to have to pay massive income tax when they get forgiven). If "normal" means being broke for the rest of my life, no thanks. There's no excuse for people to end up homeless just because they can't get the career of their dreams the day they leave college.


Been there, done that. With wife and two children. I never, EVER want to do that again.

We really do know what it's like to be homeless. I think what was so different about us is that we saw what was coming and accepted it. We saw the writing on the wall when first I lost my job and then it started to become obvious that she wouldn't have a job for very long. We were also told that our mortgage would stay at a certain monthly rate we knew we could afford. Next thing we know we're paying out over $1k on a house note that we never agreed to. We can't eat and can barely keep our kids in diapers because of banks and student loans are eating us alive. Next thing I know, I'm working two piano teaching studios--one of which parents really did not want to pay fees--and I have another part-time gig besides. I'm not even making enough money to keep the lights on. We cut cable, phone, and internet. We took WIC to at least keep mom and kids fed and spent a lot of time at the health department. Without any real plan of finding a place to live, we put our house up for sale. That was just before the economy got so ugly, too, so we were fortunate to sell within six months. The day we closed, wife got a job offer. So she went back to work while I took care of the kids in the off-season. And that's when we moved into the Econo-Lodge.

With the little we had left, we got a awesome deal on a double-wide manufactured home that some friends of ours were desperate to get rid of. So we paid for the home and the acre lot all in cash. We're still well under the poverty line, but at least there's no chance for us to be without a home again. It's an humbling experience because we were dangerously close to homelessness being a permanent way of life.

For us, we made a lot of stupid decisions that pushed us to the brink. If we'd known better, we'd have just stayed in cheap apartments and moved around the state to get to the better teaching jobs. Because we had so much vested in our property (that we couldn't afford), we ended up losing over half of everything we had. We guessed early on that at some point we'd be out of a place to live, and that gave us enough time to figure out how to deal with it and the best way to use what resources we had left to survive it. People who have to endure homelessness as an endless lifestyle either fail to figure out how to make the best use of what they have left or they never had those kinds of resources in the first place--the latter I think is probably more likely. We were fortunate that we woke up just in time to avoid going down either path.

There's poverty because it has been decreed that a substantial percentage of the available jobs be poverty jobs, and this is systemic, if someone "pulls himself up from his bootstraps" and assumes "Personal Responsibility" and through this effort escapes, someone else must take his place. Moreover, a Reserve Army of Labour is decreed under the NAIRU doctrine. Poverty is a political decision, there must be poverty, it has been decreed, moreover those in charge believe it a most effective means of discipline. They do see however that some people give up under these systemic conditions so they usually demand even more punitiveness. They like to terrorise people and punish people, I think it also fulfils some of their lustful desires.

Do you have any sources for this? If you do, I can use this in my further argument against certain beliefs that are held today.

You see it all over the business media... just read up on the NAIRU doctrine... and the Right's obsession with discipline (Their main complaint about Communism is that with full employment 'people pretend to work, people pretend to be paid'). There's also something called the Neoliberal Penality described by Bernard Harcourt. I think Harcourt is a good place to start.

The quote you posted here actually does avoid stating an objective truth by admitting that the statement is merely that person's opinion. Well, unless you count "I don't think..." as a statement of objective truth. Saying "I doubt you will find it," on the other hand, is not saying "you'll never find it." It's an expression of doubt. Unless...of course...the statement "I doubt" is also a statement of an objective truth.

Dontcha just love relativistic incoherency?

Stating there is not an objective truth is not a self-defeating statement, btw. It only becomes self-defeating when someone tries to qualify it by stating an objective truth.

It all sounds kinda conspiracy theory-ish to me. The only person holding me back is myself. I could, say, go back to school, earn a doctorate, and be a university prof, make the kind of money I wanted to make, get performances of my work, and live out my dreams that way. I just don't think I'd really enjoy the ivory tower existence, which is why I don't do it. I'd love to make it big and not be poor anymore. I'd just rather endure a certain level of poverty, do what I do, and live a happy or at least content existence than be rolling in dough and be miserable.

My existence has also allowed me to expand my interests beyond music in ways that might support my music. We're starting a vegetable garden this year and have considered that we might have a surplus that we'd rather not waste. So after we freeze what we can't eat fresh, after we give stuff away to people we know need food, we can sell produce at the farmer's market and make a little monetary return on our investment. The organization that supports the farmer's market also pays out grant money to performing musicians, and it would also be a good opportunity to record a few albums and sell CD's. If you just think about it, just a little, there are all kinds of ways you can earn a few extra dollars here and there to dig yourself out of a financial rough spot.

I see, so perhaps you can overcome all obstacles. That means that some other sap will be in a poverty job or in the Reserve Army of Labour instead of you. That you succeed changes nothing. The ruling class wants poverty because it is good for discipline. If there was full employment, if almost all jobs paid decently, it would be an easy matter to goof off on the job, to do a bad job, to insult the boss, and when you're sacked, you get another good job later in the day. That means millions of people out there can be completely undisciplined, they reason. That's why the official story is that the 1960s and 1970s were such a disaster... there was full employment then and uppity workers... What is needed, they reason, to bring forth the discipline and the obedience is to have lots of poverty and lots of unemployment. Then you'll work hard, then you'll do what you're told and if you don't succeed, then you must be genetically inferior or somehow personally responsible for your failure and you take it out on yourself but certainly never on society, never on the ruling class... that's what people are told to do.

What is described as "conspiracy theory-ish" is in fact common sense. Do the bosses want to have real punishments available in their tool box or don't they? They do.

I get what you are saying.

You showed me an error in my reasoning. This is mainly what I desire.

Why won't anyone answer my questions though and show me where my reasoning is off.

I can only imagine the firestorm that would erupt in this thread if Inuyasha were still here, and defending Romney, Gingrich, and the other asshats who have been demeaning and dehumanizing the poor in the Cracked article.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I would love Inuyasha to read the things that I say and give me a thoughtful examination of where my assumptions are off if they are off and why they are off.

Asking that systemic issues be addressed is not a cop out, it is not something that's in the stars, it's in ourselves... it doesn't have to be that way. It's as if we must say, hey, the elites have set the table this way, have set the game this way, we must play and never ask why it's set this way.

In the future the wealthy individuals will covet the wealth of the collective.

WHAT systemic issues??? That's what I'm trying to figure out. If I'm able to improve my own situation and maybe even build some personal/household wealth in the process, I guarantee you there's not going to be any amount of wealth, great or small, that I gain that's going to be of any consequence to anyone else. I mean, you take people like Bill Gates and the late, great Steve Jobs. Those guys don't mean anything to me other than making some good software and building great computer products. I've never met either, and if I ever meet Gates or anyone else on that level, it's unlikely that either of us will make any significant impact on the other--it's just as unlikely if we never meet. I don't care about their money, they have no idea who I am much less even care about how much money I have, and I don't see how that's going to change.

If I do move up in my local market, it's not going to affect any other aspiring musician with less experience in terms of opportunity. Sure, I do things to hedge my bets. I network. I get to know people in local government, chamber of commerce, the arts community, etc., and they in turn keep me informed on what I need to know to do what I want to do. It has nothing to do with my level of education, my experience, or my money. It has to do with keeping an ear to the ground. Any high school graduate can have the same opportunities and not set one foot on a college campus. Heck, even teenagers can do this kind of thing on the weekends and start the networking process much earlier.

Look, if you want to succeed in building wealth or in meeting career and family goals, you have to do what successful people do. Successful people come up with a realistic, realizable, reasonable goal and come up with likewise realistic plans for achieving those goals. Successful people don't sit around and whine all day about being downtrodden and cheated out of opportunities. My whole idea, which right now is just that--an idea, for making some extra money selling produce and playing music at the farmer's market is not about any kind of competition. The grant money is there to encourage other musicians/artists to take part in farmer's market activities and hopefully draw more attention from locals and hopefully maybe even tourists. Which in turn makes more money available to the local economy, which in turn means local musicians and artists can make MORE money, which will encourage them to keep doing what they do. There are PLENTY of empty chairs at this table. You only lose if you don't play.

If I'm successful enough, meaning I have wealth to spread around, I'm going to look into hiring a team to collaborate with and help me make better decisions. I love solo gigs, but I love playing in bands better. I love instrumental music, but I enjoy working with songwriters more. If I ever make it that far, I'm going to pick people I feel the most comfortable working with and who I know will work well together. If you don't fit that description, I might know someone else who can use you or you might actually do better on your own.

FYI: I do have a sort of team "in development." I'm very close to my family, especially my small children. Since they've spent so much time with me and they're learning music via piano, AND they're doing it MY way, they'll be ready in a few short years for public performances, either with me or just doing the local talent show circuit. When it comes to practice, which they hate, I remind them that nobody likes whiners, especially not me. The point of practice is not to "get it right." The point is to stop making mistakes. And we don't believe in failure. Or oversleeping. And we treat all people we meet with dignity and respect. And we quickly learn to identify the differences between wise decisions and stupid decisions in all aspects of life. And on top of that model the behavior you expect from others to start building leadership ability. This might not seem self-evident when it comes to simple piano lessons, but the time spent in teaching and conversing with children is meant to build the kinds of character traits that people tend to admire. Besides, who do you think is going to count out seeds and plant them in the garden this spring? It won't be the grownups!

The point is you work your tail off no matter what, you don't whine about it, you don't blame successful people for your lack of success, you educate yourself on what it takes to do your job better, you network with consumers and industry pros alike to find out where the needs are and the best practices to meet those needs, and you observe how people who have been in the business longer than you create demand for themselves. If all you do is complain about getting passed over for opportunities, it only shows that you aren't really all that interested in doing the kind of work that successful people do. Nobody is going to hire someone who only complains about hating the job or not getting a promotion that 1) wasn't deserved or 2) that person would not have done well with more responsibility because they're too busy whining about everything. And nobody is going to buy products or services from someone they don't know or isn't reputable. Lazy people and whiners sit on their butts playing Xbox and watching Dr. Phil all day rather than promoting themselves or establishing a solid reputation by putting out the occasional freebie. Every now and then I'll play a "free gig," usually with charitable or service organizations. On the record it's free. Off the record I might get "tips" or "gifts," and sometimes those can be pretty substantial. Lazy whiners only see lack of income; successful people keep open minds. I don't do as well as I'd LIKE to do, and I've played many more free gigs than I'd like to have played...but the payoff is when I do play now, it's rare that I get under $100.

Oh, and when I'm teaching piano, my fees are $40/hr. The majority of my students are lower middle class income and minorities, though one of my students is a circuit court judge. These are people who believe in what I'm doing and believe that they get their money's worth. My fee for solo gigs is $125 for up to two hours playing time, and I'm thinking about bumping that up to $250. I won't do any length of composing, songwriting collaboration, production, or similar work-for-hire for less than $250, and I don't care if it's just 15 seconds of sound effects. I can usually expect $100 playing with a band for 3 hours at a bar--sometimes more, sometimes less. If I get a regular spot doing weekend performances this summer, I have no idea what they're willing to pay. I like to think it's comparable to what I already do. I've been advised not to discuss my church gig, but let's just say for a part-time lead instrumentalist it doesn't suck. My problem financially is not that I don't make enough in salaried wages or hourly fees. My problem is I don't have enough students to fill up an entire day or any clients interested in other services I could provide. Those high fees come to very little when you're averaging less than $1000/month. The thing is, though, I haven't done as well as I have by complaining about not having enough clientele or not collecting enough fees to support my family. I told my immediate supervisor that either my kids have to come to work with me or I have to raise my fees. She was reluctant to raise my fees acquiesced when I pointed out just how long I'd been working there and the recent sacrifices I made to extend my hours. I'm breaking even on hiring an hourly babysitter, but otherwise things with that job are improving.

And the main thing is I'm not standing on anyone's back to improve things at my job!

I dunno, I might have stolen ONE violin student from local teachers. However, I maintain a lot of flexibility in my teaching approach that makes me more appealing than some traditional teachers. If you can't get along with someone else, give me a chance for 90 days before you completely give up! But I didn't go through a violinist's student roster, start cold-calling her students, and dig up dirt on the teacher. I have an advertisement on a flashing sign and a listing in a college course catalog in the non-credit section. So it's either the other teacher's fault for making the student uncomfortable, the student's fault (maybe) for being unreasonable in the past, or something else. It's apparent that the former teacher and student don't miss each other!

But the idea that if there are winners, there MUST be losers when it comes to jobs and careers is just repulsive to me. My life has been marked by a mix of wins and losses, and the losses have always just been part of it. Over time the wins have outweighed the losses. Complaining about the rough patches has NEVER helped me get through them, aside from just venting to those who are the closest to me. But when I'm done, I pull up my big-boy pants and get back to work. Cuz that's what successful people do.

What I do not understand is this. Why do you and others keep focusing on ideas like self-improvement and positivity so much instead of the actual mechanics and nitty-gritty of self-improvement.

To do what you ask, one has to understand the underlying system he is in and what the rules are governing it. I understand programing very well because I understand the syntax and was able to derive how to use the syntax. I was able to do many test cases and create awesome applications.

In elementary school I remember I had to memorize 20 definitions for words for a quiz on Friday and I was given the words on Monday. In addition, I was given math problems in which 30 was due on Friday as well. I had 5 questions due in social studies on Wednesday as well.

This is what I did.

I memorized 7 words per day until Wednesday. I did 8 problems per day in math. I did 3 questions on Monday and 2 questions on Tuesday in social studies. My goal was to get all of these done at least one day before they were due.

I had concrete and specific information to do this. When you and others only talk about the idea of setting goals, positivity, and success and perservate on it doesn't tell me anything because it is too abstract.

Let's say I want to obtain an IT career. I have tried to look up the information for this but a lot of it is difficult to follow. None of the organizations or associations spell out what goals exist and what the career paths are? How does an IT graduate determine a. where the bottom, b. the name of all IT positions c. what position slots they occur d. what the rules are that govern advancement and starting at the position 0 which is the bottom?

You going on about attitude, the idea of improving one's situation does not help if one does not know how to determine the governing principles behind the workplace including the ranks of the hierarchy.

Let's say in a game one needs to cast a particular spell within two hours. In order to do that, he needs 5000 gold. He has 1000 gold right now. Each gold mine takes five minutes to build. Each gold mine produces 1000 per hour. To be on the safe side and keep that initial 1000 he determines he has to build 6 gold mines. This takes 500 wood to do so. He can't produce enough wood in the allotted time he has. He has to buy 400 wood on the market which costs 500 gold to do so. He let's go of trying to keep the initial 1000 gold and decides to make it to where 500 gold is left. He buys the wood, builds the gold mines, and is able to cast the spell within 2 hours. Because of this he gains 100 skill points and advances to level 3.

The problem is I am missing concrete information such as this. I do not know how to set a goal if all we do is talk about setting goals. I don't see how it is morally righteous to make someone righteous for something in which it is not transparent to him. Transparency means that he can derive it or it can be taught to him.

In essence, I have zero clue as to what you are saying and zero clue as to what you are talking about. I can only proceed if I have the correct data otherwise positivity, responsibility and telling me to set goals will do me no good.

Let's say I am a deer. Will I not have a negative reaction to a lion who is trying to eat me. Wouldn't I feel fear and run like hell? The outside stimulus caused by previous experiences causes one's negative reaction. How do you derive the converse and why do you and others focus on the converse so, so much? It makes no logical sense to me whatsoever.

Fnord said and I am paraphrasing. He said I am responsible for clearing up my own confusion. How can I use my own neurology which is based upon erroneous thinking to get to sounder thinking. How do I do that? I am being given logic I literally do not know how to follow.

xenon, these are serious accusations that you are stating with Nariu and all. Do you have solid proof that backs this up that is reliable and trustworthy. It can't be something that some schmuk made up. I do believe there is a group of elites out there who have a lot of say but we can't just go making s**t up. I have no proof of my opinion though.

If what you say is truthfully so about Nariu then how do you and those on the different websites derive this. Do you have evidence that an elite cabal is in power and has all of this control of the workplace and purposely creates poverty?

I'm a believer in getting to the truth no matter where it leads. For all I know angelRho, Fnord and others may be correct and I have erroneous thinking. I'm willing to listen if they are willing to explain. I have challenged them to provide premises to their thinking and show me where mine are wrong.

I extend the challenge to your position as well. Back your stuff up with physical and concrete proof please and show me your premises that give you the conclusion. You may be correct as well and it could be possible that all of you are correct to some extent.