25 years old and deep in debt

[Malthus]

Not having clothing is not a necessary condition.  But it is a sufficient condition of being poor.  You describe a life in which you did not live in concern of when you might next eat, whether you might have clothing and you were certainly never in any doubt that there would always be a roof over your head in one form or another.

I have not ignored the possibility of your downward mobility.  I expressly addressed it.  You might have missed the post where I said in part:

the reason I didnt include [a reference to downward mobility] is because you didnt actually suffer it.  The potential of downward mobility is something everyone risks to one degree or another.  Except the poor   If you have suffered downward mobility and had in fact become poor then we wouldnt be having this discussion

.


DGuller identified the problem quite well. It is a bit comical to hear someone who I would have considered rich at the time I was poor to try to make out the case that he was in the same socio-economic circumstances simply because he suffered from some concern of downward mobility.  The poor dont have that concern.  They are already there.  The concern of the poor is how to find the necessities of life.

Except that I've never, in fact, denied that our circumstances were totally different. It is "comical" (to use your expression) to see people arguing so strenuously against straw men of your own manufacture - such as you and DGuller. I never claimed that I came from the socio-economic class background of "the poor", merely that I was, after leaving university, "poor". I have never hidden the fact my family was well-educated and middle-class. In fact, this whole argument was triggered by my pointing out I had advantages other people lacked - namely, free undergrad as a perk to my dad's job as a prof.

The term "poor" I was using meaning, very simply, someone who earned little money. That's the usual use of the term, and why you are objecting to it boggles the mind.

As I've said all along, I'd happily use a different word, just to make you happy. But despite repeated requests, none of you can think of one that works. So maybe you shouldn't complain so much about my use of the term? 

[Jacob]

It was a poor choice of words.

[Malthus]

I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.

Exactly, now put yourself in the postion of a family that does make that kind of money or less and you start to have an idea of what being poor really is.

According to Meri, unless you have eaten Ramen noodles for months straight you weren't "poor" either.

[Valmy]

Look guys lay off Malthus.  It must be painful for him to relive that time in his life when he could only afford the $500.00 stroller.

[garbon]

If the hot water, electricity and heat didn't constantly get shut off, I might not have learned the importance of using only what I need and paying for it on time.

If my parents had all kinds of connections that I could use to help get ahead, I would never have needed to learn how to build those relationships myself.

If my parents had been able to pay for my school, I would probably have wasted all the time that I otherwise spent in the working world getting the experience that boosted me into having a career.

If the living environment at my parents house had been pleasant, it would probably not have been as important to me as it was to get the fuck on my own and upgrade my life.

If I hadn't seen my parents working hard and getting nowhere, I might have the false impression that hard work is all you need to have to get ahead, or that people deserve a living just because they work hard.




Being poor: ADVANTAGE

You're mistaken. You could/would have learned most of those things without being poor.

[Malthus]

I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.

And my point is that my mother was raising three kids and caring for a sick husband on exactly that kind of wages.

And I didn't want to end up in that situation. My sole point: I knew the money I was making was for shit, that it was okay to do that in my 20s but that it would suck to be doing that in my 30s and having a family. Right?

Hard to afford the ... expensive stroller then. 

[merithyn]

I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.

Exactly, now put yourself in the postion of a family that does make that kind of money or less and you start to have an idea of what being poor really is.

According to Meri, unless you have eaten Ramen noodles for months straight you weren't "poor" either.

I clarified in a follow-up post, Malthus. The eating-Ramen-noodles comment was an example, not a definitive clarifier.

[garbon]

I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.

And my point is that my mother was raising three kids and caring for a sick husband on exactly that kind of wages.

And I didn't want to end up in that situation. My sole point: I knew the money I was making was for shit, that it was okay to do that in my 20s but that it would suck to be doing that in my 30s and having a family. Right?

Hard to afford the ... expensive stroller then. 

So again, voluntary.

[merithyn]

And I didn't want to end up in that situation. My sole point: I knew the money I was making was for shit, that it was okay to do that in my 20s but that it would suck to be doing that in my 30s and having a family. Right?

Hard to afford the ... expensive stroller then. 

[Malthus]

I'd hate to have attempted having kids while earning that kind of money.

Exactly, now put yourself in the postion of a family that does make that kind of money or less and you start to have an idea of what being poor really is.

Dude. My whole reason for doing what I did, was that I could easily see what being in that situation was like, just by looking around. And I did not like it, no, not one little bit. 

[Valmy]

And I did not like it, no, not one little bit. 

You can always tell that parent who has read 'The Cat in the Hat' too many times.

[Neil]

Malthus might have been poor, but he wasn't part of 'The Poor'.  Yi's 'slumming' might have been the most apt term.

[Malthus]

Malthus might have been poor, but he wasn't part of 'The Poor'.  Yi's 'slumming' might have been the most apt term.

Heh. Hindsight is 20-20.

If I'd kept doing what I was doing, I'd be part of "the poor" all right by now. 

Many of the people I knew did (and are). My best friend (at the time)'s dad was Chair of Fine Arts at OCA, so he clearly wasn't "poor" as a kid. Last I saw him, a couple of years ago, he was doing odd jobs at a bar and selling a little weed to get by. He's in his mid-40s now, same as me. Is he "slumming"?

[Neil]

If I'd kept doing what I was doing, I'd be part of "the poor" all right by now. 

Absolutely.  Being a part of the poor means having no prospects.  You were young and doing crap jobs, but your accumulated social capital and potential hadn't yet withered away.  When you have no money and no opportunity to improve yourself, that's when you join the poor.

[crazy canuck]

Not having clothing is not a necessary condition.  But it is a sufficient condition of being poor.  You describe a life in which you did not live in concern of when you might next eat, whether you might have clothing and you were certainly never in any doubt that there would always be a roof over your head in one form or another.

I have not ignored the possibility of your downward mobility.  I expressly addressed it.  You might have missed the post where I said in part:

the reason I didnt include [a reference to downward mobility] is because you didnt actually suffer it.  The potential of downward mobility is something everyone risks to one degree or another.  Except the poor   If you have suffered downward mobility and had in fact become poor then we wouldnt be having this discussion

.


DGuller identified the problem quite well. It is a bit comical to hear someone who I would have considered rich at the time I was poor to try to make out the case that he was in the same socio-economic circumstances simply because he suffered from some concern of downward mobility.  The poor dont have that concern.  They are already there.  The concern of the poor is how to find the necessities of life.

Except that I've never, in fact, denied that our circumstances were totally different. It is "comical" (to use your expression) to see people arguing so strenuously against straw men of your own manufacture - such as you and DGuller. I never claimed that I came from the socio-economic class background of "the poor", merely that I was, after leaving university, "poor". I have never hidden the fact my family was well-educated and middle-class. In fact, this whole argument was triggered by my pointing out I had advantages other people lacked - namely, free undergrad as a perk to my dad's job as a prof.

The term "poor" I was using meaning, very simply, someone who earned little money. That's the usual use of the term, and why you are objecting to it boggles the mind.

As I've said all along, I'd happily use a different word, just to make you happy. But despite repeated requests, none of you can think of one that works. So maybe you shouldn't complain so much about my use of the term? 

I apologize if I misunderstood you to mean that you were poor when you said you were poor.