25 years old and deep in debt

[garbon]

Couple of months ago, I stepped out of my apartment and forgot my wallet, with all the cash and credit/debit cards inside.  That brief period of poverty was very traumatic.    Never again! 

Same when I lost my wallet in Paris and had access to 4 Euros that I promptly spent on a beer.

[merithyn]

That's all fair enough, but two people's situations don't have to be identical to be covered by the same word.

Being poor simply means having no money.

The fact is that none of you can come up with a better term. There certainly is a distinction between "I was poor in the sense that I, personally, had no money, but I came from an educated middle class family" and "I was poor because my parents had literally nothing", sure. But both people are "poor".

I'd say the distinction is between "broke" and "poor". You were broke; I was poor.

No, because "broke" means a purely temporary condition - having literally no money at that particular moment. "Wanna go out for drinks tonight? - Naw, I can't, I'm broke until payday"

I was never "broke". I had money, because I worked. I just had very little money, because I only earned a little. In short, I was what most people (except I guess languishites) call "poor". 

Maybe it is voluntary poverty vs. not - particularly when there still at the end of the day is a safety net that could help you out.

Exactly. The point being that it was a temporary thing for you, and given your opportunites, was always going to be a temporary thing for you.

[garbon]

That's all fair enough, but two people's situations don't have to be identical to be covered by the same word.

Being poor simply means having no money.

The fact is that none of you can come up with a better term. There certainly is a distinction between "I was poor in the sense that I, personally, had no money, but I came from an educated middle class family" and "I was poor because my parents had literally nothing", sure. But both people are "poor".

I'd say the distinction is between "broke" and "poor". You were broke; I was poor.

No, because "broke" means a purely temporary condition - having literally no money at that particular moment. "Wanna go out for drinks tonight? - Naw, I can't, I'm broke until payday"

I was never "broke". I had money, because I worked. I just had very little money, because I only earned a little. In short, I was what most people (except I guess languishites) call "poor". 

Maybe it is voluntary poverty vs. not - particularly when there still at the end of the day is a safety net that could help you out.

Exactly. The point being that it was a temporary thing for you, and given your opportunites, was always going to be a temporary thing for you.

Well always "potentially" temporary. He could conceivably have continued to live that way, by choice.

[Malthus]

Maybe it is voluntary poverty vs. not - particularly when there still at the end of the day is a safety net that could help you out.

I don't get why you people are saying it was "voluntary".  Like I could someow just choose to be earning more, or if I just asked, my parents would give me an income.

Sure they would not literally allow me to starve, but in Canada, that's not a realistic possibility anyway.

They had made it pretty clear that, in their opinions, I was on my own. 

[Malthus]

Exactly. The point being that it was a temporary thing for you, and given your opportunites, was always going to be a temporary thing for you.

I dunno, seems that plenty of folks with a useless BA can't just wave that magic wand and get a high-paying job these days from "choice" - hence this thread.

[The Brain]

I don't know Canadian inheritance laws but generally speaking being in line for money is worth money.

[garbon]

Maybe it is voluntary poverty vs. not - particularly when there still at the end of the day is a safety net that could help you out.

I don't get why you people are saying it was "voluntary".  Like I could someow just choose to be earning more, or if I just asked, my parents would give me an income.

Sure they would not literally allow me to starve, but in Canada, that's not a realistic possibility anyway.

They had made it pretty clear that, in their opinions, I was on my own. 

Because you clearly had the talent/skills/connections to do better things?

[MadImmortalMan]

On top of that, having educated, well-off parents means that you learned life skills from your youth forward that sustained you, skills that I had to learn on my own as an adult after making a myriad of mistakes learned from my parents.

That doesn't mean that one can't overcome that - my siblings definitely have - but it's much harder.

I dunno, I'd say I learned those life skills BECAUSE my parents were poor. 

I count having that background as an advantage. I learned that it doesn't matter how much or how hard you work. Life does not reward work. It rewards risk.

[merithyn]

Hey, Malthus, I'm curious. How long was it between your undergrad degree and law school?

And I should also say that I'm not discounting that it was a difficult time for you. What I'm saying is that while you may have been less well off than your parents, it doesn't sound like you were ever really poor, as I understand it. You had a home, food, clothing, and necessities, and you had the ability to progress. From my perspective, that's not poor so much as not rich.

In my case, there were days without food unless we were fed by the school or the neighbors (which is why I lived with my neighbors for several years). Clothes came from the church, not a store. And government cheese and milk weren't a "perk", they were a necessity.

I don't consider myself poor now, though I'm by no means wealthy. I have a home, I have food, and I have the necessities to get by. Not a whole lot extra, but certainly not where I was as a child. I am, however, frequently broke.

[Admiral Yi]

Gave Teh Malthus Issue a little thought.  "I have been poor," is OK.  "I used to be poor" or "I was poor" is misleading.

[The Brain]

"I have once seen a poor" is OK.

[merithyn]

Gave Teh Malthus Issue a little thought.  "I have been poor," is OK.  "I used to be poor" or "I was poor" is misleading.

That seems fair.

[DGuller]

Gave Teh Malthus Issue a little thought.  "I have been poor," is OK.  "I used to be poor" or "I was poor" is misleading.

This is one of those times I wish English were my first language.

[merithyn]

This is one of those times I wish English were my first language.

Try it like this:

"I have been poor," is OK.  "I used to be a poor" or "I was a poor" is misleading.

[crazy canuck]

Malthus,

Without wanting to pile on too much.  There was a period in my childhood when my parents could not afford to buy new clothes for me.  That was a problem because this was a period when I was growing rapidly.  There were no charities that could provide clothes to me because who thinks to donate clothes of that size

Likely for me a local merchant offered a "deal" to my dad.  The merchant gave me my clothes and allowed my dad to pay him back when he got the money - interest free.  That is more in line with what I consider being poor.

When I got my first sholarship money I went to pay back the amount left over (my dad had paid back some but not all of the amount).  The merchant refused the money and wished me luck. 

I was fortunate to have recieved this kindness but obviously not all people recieve these benefits.