Hacker News Reader

Comment by philwelch | Hacker News Reader

Or maybe people with marginal incomes spend themselves into sustained poverty through wasteful consumption. If they saved money instead of buying minimally useful possessions and saving the possessions, maybe they wouldn't have to worry about being able to afford stuff they need. You and I have probably known different sets of poor people, but I've seen cases of this.

That doesn't justify throwing things away once you have them, though, but how does one get them in the first place and were they all really necessary at the time?

View on HN

Wow, that's possibly the most arrogant, yet typically upper-middle class thing I've seen all week on HN.

Unfortunately, the "poor people are poor 'cos they're dumb!" sentiment is way too prevalent just about anywhere you go.

I had the (unexpected and unintended) opportunity to live on the wrong side of the tracks, in an incredibly poor industrial neighbourhood - the reality is far more complex than "poor people have poor impulse spending control". To reduce it to such is incredibly out of touch with reality.

I don't think that was his point.

His point wasn't "poor people are poor because they spend too much", his point was, "maybe spending too much is part of what keeps them poor." Obviously there's a lot of factors reducing economic mobility anyway, but poor spending choices certain don't help.

The best example of this would be addiction. A lot of poor people are addicted to tobacco, alcohol, illegal drugs, etc. This puts a huge damper on any ability to save they might have.

But I'm sure he knows that sub-optimal spending decisions are just one of many reasons that poor people stay poor.

I'm not upper middle class at all. "Upper middle class" implies an income that's an order of magnitude above what my parents ever made. And I don't think spending-and-hoarding is why people are poor. Everyone spends and hoards--it's human nature. Unfortunately it's a bit of human nature that causes more problems the less income you have.

Nor did I say poor people are poor because they're dumb, or that they have poor impulse spending control, just that they might still benefit from a minimalist lifestyle. On the contrary--some that I've known have been bright and very deliberate about spending. But like most people, they still deliberately buy things they don't really need using the same poor justifications that wealthier people use.

I'm not interested in assigning any kind of blame to anyone. You're interpreting a subtext that isn't there.

> poor people have poor impulse spending control

Here in the UK it is broadly true though. It's not necessarily an intelligence or "dumb" thing. It's just that the consumer culture is enticing - and no one has been taught how to control those impulses or to budget adequately.

A lot of the poorest families do budget and consume well due to necessity. The problem is those (I think the vast majority) of people living just above poverty who "splash the cash", spend money they don't have and end up in thousands of pounds of debt.

(and, yes, I've lived in that group for a fair while. Though fortunately my parents managed the money ok)

Around my house, the poor sections of town were the ones with ridiculously tricked-out cars, and the siding on their houses was literally falling off, with lots of roof damage. They'd spend thousands on a paint job, but nothing to stop the leaky roof, drafts, and higher energy costs that go with those. I've seen nearly identical things many other places (replace cars with expensive-but-uncomfortable shoes, stereotypically-goth-$100 pants, etc).

From my experiences, it's typically that moderately-poor people spend themselves into further poverty by having poor priorities. Status-buys seem to rank higher than life-improvers.

From what I've read, there is a lot of truth to what he says. Its not that poor people are dumb, but that the short term spending that everyone does has a much bigger effect on them (as its a much bigger proportion of their income).

Caveat: The paper I'm thinking of was referring to incredibly poor people in India, so it might not necessarily carry over to all contexts.

The poor and lower-middle-class people I know don't do that. They just don't have the education or expertise that offers a job that pays more than 30k a year. There isn't much to save on 30k a year after mortgage/rent/car/insurance/kid-college-loan-payments/food, even if you're very thrifty. And God help you if you end up in that situation with an outstanding credit card balance or two.

Yeah, you can say they should have gotten the education or the expertise, and I or they or both might agree with you, but spending isn't usually the main issue.

you've laid it out nicely, this is the mindset of the poor and average people. I always remember the photo of Jobs's living room in the 80s. When there isn't too much crap around, you can actually focus on what matters.

STEVE JOBS AT HOME IN 1982 — “This was a very typical time. I was single. All you needed was a cup of tea, a light, and your stereo, you know, and that’s what I had.” —Steve Jobs

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0712/y_walker08.html

Some time later:

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2004/07/24/ho_jobs_1.jpg

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2009/fortune/0911/gallery.ste...

$3000 Eames lounge chair, hand-made carpet, etc.

I bet Jobs still owns that Eames chair, though.

exactly, that is the one I had in my head ;) but still made a correction bellow...

I wouldn't go that far. It's the mindset of most people, almost everyone who hasn't specifically trained themselves to be minimalist. People with enough income can afford to hoard as long as you don't give them too much easy credit, though, so it doesn't hurt them in the same way it hurts people with less income.

You are right with your correction. I just read again what I wrote - it's quite harsh I see. Should have been in bed long time ago :D

My intention was: The mindset of poor and average people is commonly very affected by this, with least barriers, falling into a rat race, as a cause and a consequence.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com