Was Malthus ever poor?

[Admiral Yi]

What I've learned from this series of threads is that those who have been poor know it, and those who haven't either think they have, or think that no one really is.

In other words, you're the only person qualified to judge who has and has not been poor.

[crazy canuck]

What I've learned from this series of threads is that those who have been poor know it, and those who haven't either think they have, or think that no one really is.

In other words, you're the only person qualified to judge who has and has not been poor.

I dont think she is saying that at all.  But it is illuminating to have read some posts of people who think they might know what it is like to be poor.

[Malthus]

That goes to the whole point that Malthus' claim to have been poor in misguided because it ignores the advantages his upper middle class status gave to him. 

Assuming you ignore the fact I stated all along that I had such advantages and that this made my situation different from those who grew up in poor families. To repeat, you only know of my free undergrad because I told you about it, specifically to make that point.

Issue here is that you don't own the word "poor" and not every use of that word refers to (1) people growing up poor; or alternatively (2) Calcutta scavangers; who could, without a doubt, raise xactly the same remarks to you, as you have to me!

[crazy canuck]

That goes to the whole point that Malthus' claim to have been poor in misguided because it ignores the advantages his upper middle class status gave to him. 

Assuming you ignore the fact I stated all along that I had such advantages and that this made my situation different from those who grew up in poor families. To repeat, you only know of my free undergrad because I told you about it, specifically to make that point.

Issue here is that you don't own the word "poor" and not every use of that word refers to (1) people growing up poor; or alternatively (2) Calcutta scavangers; who could, without a doubt, raise xactly the same remarks to you, as you have to me!

I know you say that Malthus.  But then you went on for some time to defend your assertion that for a brief time you were poor by some technical statistical model you were in fact poor and by the fact that for a brief time you ran the risk of downward mobility.  When those arguments were refuted you seem to have retreated from that line of argument and now you are saying something along the lines that you didnt actually claim to be poor but immediately acknowledged that you hadnt been but couldn't find the right word to discribe your poor like state.

You are quite right to say I dont own the word.  But it is important that it not lose its meaning either.

[merithyn]

What I've learned from this series of threads is that those who have been poor know it, and those who haven't either think they have, or think that no one really is.

In other words, you're the only person qualified to judge who has and has not been poor.

Is that how you read that? Interesting, as it's not at all what I meant.

[frunk]

What I've learned from this series of threads is that those who have been poor know it, and those who haven't either think they have, or think that no one really is.

In other words, you're the only person qualified to judge who has and has not been poor.

Is that how you read that? Interesting, as it's not at all what I meant.

The question is, how do you differentiate between those who have been poor and know it and those who think they were poor but weren't?

[Admiral Yi]

Is that how you read that? Interesting, as it's not at all what I meant.

There were only two interpretations that I could come up with.  One was that if you have some doubt, your are not poor.  Only those people that are absolutely sure they are poor are in fact poor.

Of the two, the one I posted earlier made more sense: there are the true poor, of which you are/were one, and only the true poor can judge who the true poor are.  So not, strictly speaking, just you, but you and others who you deem true poor.

[fhdz]

Malthus, give it up dude.  Once the people of Languish decide something about you, that's it.  THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.  That's why I work in HR and eat out of dumpsters to these people, and will forever do so.

MAH LUNCH

MAH AUTOMATED HUMAN RESOURCES SOLUTION

[frunk]

As an aside, I don't fit in any of those categories.  I've been lucky and never been poor, although I've worked a few minimum wage/factory jobs in my time.  I'd never argue that there isn't anybody who is poor.

[merithyn]

The question is, how do you differentiate between those who have been poor and know it and those who think they were poor but weren't?

I think that's up to the person. It is, as has been said throughout all of these threads, relative.

The problem, of course, comes in when someone believes themself to be poor but another thinks otherwise. I hear Malthus' story, and I think that he was broke for a few years, and then went back to what he knew. But to Malthus, that was a time in his life where he was, for all intents and purposes, poor. Neither is wrong, per se, but if there's a question by someone else whether or not you're poor.... well, at that point, isn't it really that you think you were poor, but others don't?

Of course, the same applies to my own claim to poverty, doesn't it? Someone could easily say that I wasn't poor either, since I had a place to live and didn't die of starvation or suffer severe malnutrition.

[merithyn]

There were only two interpretations that I could come up with.  One was that if you have some doubt, your are not poor.  Only those people that are absolutely sure they are poor are in fact poor.

Of the two, the one I posted earlier made more sense: there are the true poor, of which you are/were one, and only the true poor can judge who the true poor are.  So not, strictly speaking, just you, but you and others who you deem true poor.

Your second interpretation is more correct in what I was thinking. If you're not sure if you were poor or not, then you probably haven't really been poor.

And by the way, I didn't know I was poor growing up. I was no different than anyone else in my neighborhood. It wasn't until I went to high school that I understood just how poor we were. So, if anything, I would fit more in with Malthus than CC under those circumstances.

[Malthus]

That goes to the whole point that Malthus' claim to have been poor in misguided because it ignores the advantages his upper middle class status gave to him. 

Assuming you ignore the fact I stated all along that I had such advantages and that this made my situation different from those who grew up in poor families. To repeat, you only know of my free undergrad because I told you about it, specifically to make that point.

Issue here is that you don't own the word "poor" and not every use of that word refers to (1) people growing up poor; or alternatively (2) Calcutta scavangers; who could, without a doubt, raise xactly the same remarks to you, as you have to me!

I know you say that Malthus.  But then you went on for some time to defend your assertion that for a brief time you were poor by some technical statistical model you were in fact poor and by the fact that for a brief time you ran the risk of downward mobility.  When those arguments were refuted you seem to have retreated from that line of argument and now you are saying something along the lines that you didnt actually claim to be poor but immediately acknowledged that you hadnt been but couldn't find the right word to discribe your poor like state.

You are quite right to say I dont own the word.  But it is important that it not lose its meaning either.

I never retreated from anything. Nor did you "refute" my arguments. Nor do I think that the so-called 'poverty line' is some mere "technical statistical model".

I said (and stand by it) that, after I was outta undergrad, I was "poor" by the usual, sensible and realistic meaning of the word - i.e., that I earned less money than the generally recognized level that is considered, by social scientists who actually study this stuff for a living, to constitute "poverty".

It is important to recognize what this claim isn't. Contrary to your position, it isn't a claim that I had it "really tough", and it isn't a claim that my situation was "just the same" as someone who grew up in a poor family. People can be "poor" in different ways. When you use the term, you mean someone who grew up in a particular social class: someone raised without the benefits of a middle-class upbringing. When I used the term, I meant someone who earned little money - less than the 'poverty line' for that time and place. Another person can mean by the term "poor" someone who is absolutely deprived of the necessities of life - your Calcutta scavenger. To that person, both you and I are mistaking relative deprivation for "true poverty".

Your definition is cool and all that, but it isn't the only meaning of the word, and you must know it. I was willing to use a different word to describe what I was, purely to mollify you, but none made any sense.

I proved my point with facts and stuff. Moreover, I haven't changed my tune in the least since my very first posts on the topic. You are simply asserting, over and over again, that your definition and your definition alone is meaningful, and anyone who disagrees, for some reason, makes you mad. Meanwhile, you aren't closely reading what I'm saying. 

[crazy canuck]

I said (and stand by it) that, after I was outta undergrad, I was "poor" by the usual, sensible and realistic meaning of the word - i.e., that I earned less money than the generally recognized level that is considered, by social scientists who actually study this stuff for a living, to constitute "poverty".

And this is why I have consistently called bullshit.  You have no understanding at all, even after all these pages.

[frunk]

The question is, how do you differentiate between those who have been poor and know it and those who think they were poor but weren't?

I think that's up to the person. It is, as has been said throughout all of these threads, relative.

Which comes back to Yi's point that there is someone judging who qualifies.

[Malthus]

I said (and stand by it) that, after I was outta undergrad, I was "poor" by the usual, sensible and realistic meaning of the word - i.e., that I earned less money than the generally recognized level that is considered, by social scientists who actually study this stuff for a living, to constitute "poverty".

And this is why I have consistently called bullshit.  You have no understanding at all, even after all these pages.

I've explained in detail what I said and what I meant. If you can't accept it, well, really, what can I say? That's just too bad.