The Logic of Stupid Poor People (2013)

http://tressiemc.com/2013/10/29/the-logic-of-stupid-poor-people/

by RodericDay • 11 years ago

157 118 11 years ago

RodericDay• 11 years ago

I sat in on an interview for a new administrative assistant once. My regional vice president was doing the hiring. A long line of mostly black and brown women applied because we were a cosmetology school. Trade schools at the margins of skilled labor in a gendered field are necessarily classed and raced. I found one candidate particularly charming. She was trying to get out of a salon because 10 hours on her feet cutting hair would average out to an hourly rate below minimum wage. A desk job with 40 set hours and medical benefits represented mobility for her. When she left my VP turned to me and said, “did you see that tank top she had on under her blouse?! OMG, you wear a silk shell, not a tank top!” Both of the women were black.

The VP had constructed her job as senior management. She drove a brand new BMW because she, “should treat herself” and liked to tell us that ours was an image business. A girl wearing a cotton tank top as a shell was incompatible with BMW-driving VPs in the image business. Gatekeeping is a complex job of managing boundaries that do not just define others but that also define ourselves. Status symbols — silk shells, designer shoes, luxury handbags — become keys to unlock these gates. If I need a job that will save my lower back and move my baby from medicaid to an HMO, how much should I spend signaling to people like my former VP that I will not compromise her status by opening the door to me? That candidate maybe could not afford a proper shell. I will never know. But I do know that had she gone hungry for two days to pay for it or missed wages for a trip to the store to buy it, she may have been rewarded a job that could have lifted her above minimum wage. Shells aren’t designer handbags, perhaps. But a cosmetology school in a strip mall isn’t a job at Bank of America, either.

Kabukks• 11 years ago

Gatekeeping is a complex job of managing boundaries that do not just define others but that also define ourselves. Status symbols — silk shells, designer shoes, luxury handbags — become keys to unlock these gates.

Pierre Bourdieu's "La Distinction" is a great text that investigates this topic in depth. It's (among other things) about taste. How it's inherited through generations, how it's a gatekeeping tool for jobs and status.

What you wear isn't the whole story btw. It's also how you wear it (as exemplified above ("Chavs" wearing Burberry)). One of Bourdieu's examples is art and how one speaks about it (using certain words, knowing the "right" works of art etc. Another example might be wine).

I don't know if Bourdieu is widely read in the US, but he certainly influenced my thinking about class, class boundaries, and taste. Highly recommended.

TheOtherHobbes• 11 years ago

+1 for Bourdieu. I think everyone should read him.

I thought he was particularly interesting on music. You might expect the upper classes to be opera buffs and experts on classical music. But in fact he found that the middle classes used a knowledge of classical music as evidence of aspiration.

The upper classes sometimes used opera as a status marker, but were more likely to enjoy undemanding music, like easy listening and musicals - presumably because they felt they had nothing to prove.

Interestingly, median prices for a stadium show by a mainstream act are higher than tickets for most seats at the Royal Opera House.

andrea_s3• 11 years ago

This piece hinges on the premise that "not filthy rich" is the same as "poor", and goes on a tirade from there. Is it really that controversial to state that you shouldn't buy what you can't afford?

johnloeber2• 11 years ago

I don't think you've read the article.

andrea_s3• 11 years ago

I've skimmed through it after the blatant straw man in the first paragraph, which prompted me to post. I might read it later if the resulting discussion on HN is interesting :-)

edit: downvote away, but I doubt I'm alone in feeling turned off by this kind of clickbaity behavior

Gurkenmaster• 11 years ago

I don't think anyone who can afford $2500 clothes is poor.

DrinkWater• 11 years ago

I totally agree: if you can't afford it, don't buy it. But I also understand the argument in the article that unnecessary luxury items CAN be unlock certain doors in life. However, i have the feeling that most people do these irrational purchases only for the purpose of showing off.

mc322• 11 years ago

A lot of what she says is true, but a lot of it is cultural and transcends borders. If you go up to frugal places in new england, putting on airs will not get you too far... but in other places, more flashy places, it helps.

But this phenomenon is certainly not only American or essentially white. You can go to Japan and you can go to urban coastal china and contrast that with rural china. Or you can go to Nigeria and contrast Lagos with people not from Lagos.

The signaling and the the appearances are not either uniquely american nor are they borne from mainstream american culture. It's pretty much semi-universal.

On the other hand, poor people in China and Japan will try to look as presentable as possible while being quite frugal.

This whole thing brings up a pet peeve of mine and that's the "cultural fit" meme one finds so pervasive in the valley. It's as if someone who has a Motorola 'culture' is a bad 'fit' for working at Cloudera, to make something up.

None the less, you see people slurping up the corporate culture du jour as if a 'jobdesiac'. You could imagine how if essentially mainstream engineers can be categorized as bad cultural fits just from one company to the next, how slightly different cultures would have even more pronounced experiences due to discrepancy.

_bfhp2• 11 years ago

What if "whiteness" is not a geographical/physical trait but a social construction? What if whiteness varies in the specifics of its processes around the world?

mc322• 11 years ago

labeling it 'whiteness' muddies things here. This kind of thing arose independently of any culture. But yeah, social mechanism --a cultural shibboleth.

Why do so many native english speakers insist _insist_ upon using French phraseology, even when the French phrase is quite cumbersome, if you understand French and there are native english counterparts? The same could be said about abusing buzzwords.

Basically, the goal is to mimic the received and expected behavior of where you are. If I were in india, it would behoove me to adopt more local norms in conducting business. Acting white and american, would do white americans a disservice.

rhizome• 11 years ago

"Whiteness" is absolutely physical/biological, but if you want to talk about characteristics signifying traits associated with power and dominant status, then yes, they are socially constructed. It's just not called "whiteness."

jacobolus• 11 years ago

I promise you that even in the frugalest least flashy place you can find in New England, a black woman who grew up poor in the South will get more respect from just about everyone by dressing in tasteful expensive clothes and speaking with a college-educated vocabulary and “white” dialect/accent.

zo1• 11 years ago

Maybe it's not the presence of certain features, but rather the lack of others. I.e. the gatekeeping is not by virtue of having certain features, but of not having some "negative" ones?

ZeroGravitas4• 11 years ago

Maybe I missed some subtle parts of this, but I'm not from the US and I didn't read the original piece as being specific to the US.

nchelluri• 11 years ago

Call me closed-minded, but with a title like that I'm not clicking, and I don't want to see this post on HackerNews. It's just mean.

When I was a kid I was all "oh, I can separate the artist from their art", but as an old man... fuck that.

ageek123• 11 years ago

If you read the article, you'll see that the author actually agrees with you. They just picked a clickbait-y headline because that's What People Do These Days.

some1else• 11 years ago

I was hoping it will refer to how being poor and in debt can impact your cognitive abilies: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-poverty-brain-i...

mixologic• 11 years ago

Quotation marks would serve to clarify the voice of the article, yet they would weaken the message of the article.

The Logic of "Stupid Poor People"

As an old man, I learned something by clicking on that.

szermer• 11 years ago

By far the best article I read today. Thank you for sharing.

k__• 11 years ago

I like how this article is written, but I don't think many of the "unneeded expensive buys" help to climb the ladder.

I think most of it is to feel better.

If you like your job and most of the other parts of your life, you spent less money to feel better.

But if nobody gives you a good job and you don't have much time left for the rest of your life, you get the impression that you have to buy happiness.

Can't blame those people. Did it myself for years.

patio112• 11 years ago

Somehow I think truth might be somewhere between "Poor people are making rational decisions to consume status goods in the hopes of improving their economic outcomes by convincing gatekeepers that they are, in fact, middle class" and "Poor people are spending $2,500 on handbags because poor people value handbags more than they value $2,500."

Case in point: there is no conceivable narrative by which one's sofa gets one welfare benefits or a new job as a shift lead. Poor people apparently are quite aware of this. When asked (in the article referenced by a sibling thread), the young lady's answer to "Why did you buy a sofa?" answer was "Because I wanted a sofa."

dghf• 11 years ago

Can you link to the article in question? Wanting a sofa does not seem unreasonable (you have to sit on something), and I feel I'm missing something.

Was it a particularly expensive sofa? Or by 'sofa', do you mean something other than 'couch', which is what I take it to mean?

patio112• 11 years ago

c.f. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9689979 pointing to here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/16/s...

jasonkester• 11 years ago

The idea is that one does not need a $1500 sofa if all one wants is something to sit on.

As an example, I purchased my first sofa costing more than zero at age 43. But I've always had sofas everywhere I lived before that. Sofas that meet the definition of "something to sit on" can be had for roughly zero dollars and are plentiful at that price point.

You would notice the difference if you put one side by side with a new one costing $1500, indicating that perhaps that difference in appearance is the real reason that somebody without $1500 to spare would choose to buy the latter in favor of the former.

_nedR• 11 years ago

No. What she said was she wanted "normal". Have you noticed how the poor people on tv have money for nice clothes and apartments. Basically she didn't want to feel poor. She didn't want her kids to grow thinking they were poor.

XorNot• 11 years ago

The other aspect is this: when you're poor, the moment you have money, usually some beurocratic muppetry will conspire to take it away against for essentially bullshit reasons.

These reasons are unavoidable unless you have a lot more money, but they'll also just be added to the pile of debts you can't avoid anyway. So why not spend that liquid cash now, while you have it, rather then waiting for life to decide to screw you over again and take it away for no appreciable gain?

Menge• 11 years ago

I don't think answers a person gives about their decisions is ever "real" data. For example, a rich male buying who bought an impractical sports car will give an answer that conflicts with how those around him would account for his actions.

This points my thinking back toward impulse control and delayed gratification ability being deciding factors when looking at why the sofa seems compatible with a poor young person and a sports car and a rich older person.

But with near negative interest rates, I wonder whether if the excessive sofa isn't the investment vehicle of the future. Telling your network about that indiscretion (and reminding them in your selfies) may have them thinking of you when new sources of income come up.

Shivetya2• 11 years ago

Marketers prey on these people, television shows extoll the virtues of appearance, and with credit while expensive available many of these people are just too easy to take advantage of.

you don't even have to be "poor" to be coerced into buying something too expensive for your household, Apple is the best example but many companies strive to build the got to have it mentality and personal electronics is has one of the lowest entry points for immediate recognition. Clothing isn't far behind, nor shoes, but the recognition factor outside a few brands isn't there. Cars are where its at in the middle to upper middle income brackets.

People will willingly spend themselves poor for a feeling of at least equality or success

Cthulhu_• 11 years ago

It's interesting to draw a parallel to piracy - why does piracy exist? When asked, people will often say "Because I can't afford to buy music / movies" - which actually implies that they feel entitled to said products. With piracy, theft is much easier and without repercussions or even a social stigma. With physical goods, less so - but people will still feel like they need or are entitled to certain goods (like expensive smartphones or fashion items).

nostromo• 11 years ago

This article connects the virtue of appearing professional to overspending on luxury goods as if they are identical.

I'm reminded of the "chav" subculture in Britain and their love of Burberry. (Extreme example: http://i.imgur.com/8QxFSh5.jpg) I don't get the feeling that they're trying to open doors to the British upper-class, but rather using it as a status-symbol within their own community.

Personally I don't see anything wrong with that; everyone wants to look good for their peers. But I feel like the author is trying to make it more noble than it is.

allendoerfer3• 11 years ago

I thought of the same thing. I do not think, that you buy status symbols to move to an upper class, I think they are uniforms to identify yourself within your own class and move to the top of it.

Excessive manicure, hair extensions etc. are expensive but seem like a stupid investment. They (in my mind, subjectively) lower your social status, because they are uniforms of the lower class.

Moving one class up, a big car is expensive, but you still will not be accepted in the (upper) middle class if you do not have a proper job or you wear a uniform of the lower class. The question arises whether your house is paid of or not and why you bought that car if it is not

The farther up you rise in the Bildungsbürgertum [0], the more subtle the indicators get: Do you use foreign words, that indicate your French/Latin language education? Which instruments do your children play? Do your children play football (soccer) or tennis?

The point of these status indicators is, that you can not fake them easily. You can not pay of your house if you do not have a proper paying job. You have to get a certain education to show of certain skills. If you have these things you already belong to the respective class.

Edit: Wanted to add one more thing: My most favourite social status indicator is the number of children. It seems to me, that having more than 3 children is an indicator of either the lower class, because the marginal costs of an additional child are mostly paid by the state, or the upper class, because you they can handle the marginal costs on their own again. The middle class often does not want to pay these costs.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildungsb%C3%BCrgertum

busyant• 11 years ago

My most favourite social status indicator is the number of children. It seems to me, that having more than 3 children is an indicator of either the lower class, because the marginal costs of an additional child are mostly paid by the state, or the upper class, because you they can handle the marginal costs on their own again. The middle class often does not want to pay these costs.

I don't get this. How good of an indicator can it be if >3 is both upper and lower? And is the middle class really pinned at 3?

marincounty• 11 years ago

In most of America, we don't have a ridid class system.

At least where I grew up, how much money you had, and what clothes you wore meant absolutely nothing. In fact, it often worked against you if you happened to have rich parents--the whole spolied rich kid thing.

As adults, I guess Americans start to stereotype, but we don't have hard and fast demarcations between low class and upper class.

I'm not saying Americans aren't racists, but the whole class thing was never a big deal where I grew up, or I didn't notice it?

I have noticed a bit of a change lately, but it's still not a ridid system.

I have never heard a guy talk about the economic class a women fits into--Never! They find that special person and will do anything to win them over. In other words, they find that person they find Perfect, and want a relationship--period. (The're usually rejected, but that's another topic.) I have seen women judge people on how much money they come from, but it's not as strong as in other countries, and it usually/always comes from jealousy. Yes, looks do matter. It's a commodity, especially when you are younger. How much money you have doesn't come into the picture until later in life, but that's for men. A pretty, caring female is not judged on how much money she makes. In a lot of circles, it might even work against her? Some of you will call me a sexist over that statement, but it's just something I have noticed. A rich guy who looks/acts like Donald Trump will get his pick. A rich women does not get the same perks. Yes--it's wrong, but I can care less over the happiness of the wealthy. (There I go, I am using wealthy as a demarcation of class? Yes, in American we do talk about the wealthy, and 1 percenter's, but we don't associated it with class, morals, manners, or intelligence. (Donald Trump is a perfect example of a "upper class" person in America. It just doesn't work?)

Over the years, I have sat watched movies/series about the upper classes(usually in Great Britain), and always found them hilarious. I know it's because we don't have a monarchy--thank goodness--personally I couldn't stomach all that pomposity, and family lineage b.s..

(This is coming from a 40 someting, who's always lived in liberal communities.) I don't want to argue--I never even come back to posts. I hope I didn't offend anyone concerning their perceived class?)

ZeroGravitas4• 11 years ago

I'm sure I've read a study that claimed that in communities that will be assumed to be poor, more obvious shows of wealth are more common. Which seems a fairly common sense result and would explain a preference for a white t-shirt with an expensive logo rather than a plain white t-shirt. And generally the core functional requirements (warmth, shade etc.) of clothes must be a tiny fraction of what we use them for in society given fashion, tribalism and status signalling.

malka• 11 years ago

in communities that will be assumed to be poor, more obvious shows of wealth are more common.

Your sentence made me think of a saying that we have in France :

Knowledge is like jam, the less you have, the more you spread it. (La culture c'est comme la confiture, au moins on en a, au plus on l'etale)

Fede_V• 11 years ago

Being able to signal that you are respectable is very important, especially if you are a member of a minority group that faces constant stereotyping, and I think the author makes this point very vividly.

However, the way you signal that you are respectable is not through conspicuous consumption, but through things like accent, education, knowledge of social norms, shared friendship networks, etc. Poor minorities are definitely underprivileged when it comes to those things - and this is a very serious issue, but spending on things like expensive Nikes or a Gucci bag won't suddenly ingratiate you to authorities or the upper social classes. If anything, the 'ghetto fab' aesthetic specifically rejects the restrained and minimalistic taste displayed by members of the elite.

So - I think the author makes a very good point that minorities face lots of difficulties and stereotyping, but she tries to make conspicuous consumption seem far more noble than it is... people buy expensive jewelry as a status marker within their own tribe, not as a way to better themselves.

kokey• 11 years ago

I think you and nostromo describes the situation well from a European, or British, perspective and I think this is different from the US perspective covered in the article. I think the cultures around material status symbols are very different, and social mobility too. In Europe the signals are around things which can't easily be changed over one or even two generations, so material wealth has a different purpose.

calibraxis2• 11 years ago

Conspicuous consumption definitely works, regardless of what some individuals may (believe they) feel about it.

Take HN for example. Many well-known startup-y devs joke about those who visit here, like most do with Youtube commenters. After sheepishly mentioning "I sometimes find a useful article there..." the disdain for me becomes palpable and I no longer bring it up out of embarrassment.

Nevertheless, wearing the HN shirt is likely effective in some cultures (like a secret handshake). Even if in others it's a Mark of a Fool. And even if it brands you as a wannabee, bosses and investors may see you as a useful wannabee.

tbrake• 11 years ago

That conflation doesn't exist very strongly in the article at all imo.

The piece was about signals. Using the language and mimicking the dress of those acting as gatekeepers to send in-group signals that open doors/ease engagements. "Hey, I'm one of you, treat me better."

calibraxis2• 11 years ago

From the article: "And nothing is more logical than trying to survive."

HN commenters may "feel" like "the author is trying to make it more noble than it is." But in reality, the obvious point of the article is to educate the reader on the "logic" behind decent survival.

I prefer the author's focus on logic to commenters' "feels". Perhaps these vague feels exist because mainstream media tries to make Dickensian stories out of African-American struggles; mawkish sentiment to make the audience "feel" like they care. Inculcating kneejerk expectations.

wumbernang7• 11 years ago

I was going to write a diatribe about how my sister-in-law manages to get a three bedroom semi in Berkshire in the UK, has a nice 60" television and an iphone 6 and hasn't worked a day since 1998 nor has her numerous partners, her physically disabled 15 year old son (who incidentally managed to scale a 7 foot tall wall because he couldn't be bothered to walk around the house to go and buy cigarettes), sitting there with her friends last week all they discussed was how to screw more things out of the state whilst bathing in a cloud of smoke in the garden and simultaneously annoying their neighbours with loud garage music..

...but I'm sure the logic of this article explains that...

Actually they're not stupid. They're ruthless in some areas and its hard for me to sit there a a relative and not explode violently at them.

This post is somewhat an experiment however as reddit's UK population seems to think that this class of person doesn't exist and would happily downvote people off the internet for even suggesting it, labelling you as a tory supporter and general inhuman.

laichzeit02• 11 years ago

This post is somewhat an experiment however as reddit's UK population seems to think that this class of person doesn't exist and would happily downvote people off the internet for even suggesting it, labelling you as a tory supporter and general inhuman.

You know what, fuck 'em. You're not alone, and the vast majority of people are not vocal. The vocal people are always a small minority on either side of the spectrum. Fuck 'em.

wumbernang7• 11 years ago

Glad to hear that there are people who think the same.

littletimmy5• 11 years ago

What so wrong about that? She doesn't want to work. Her choice. Get over your puritanical veneration for work. She is wise to have found a way to not work and spend her time in leisure.

wumbernang7• 11 years ago

What is so wrong: It's dishonest.

Dishonest as she has built her life on a web of lies at the extreme cost of others. Everything she owns is on credit and has no intention of paying for it for example. If she's short of cash, her solution is to find someone to fuck and get another kid to pay the bills.

She has three children. The oldest is disabled but not and has two criminal records already. The middle one has been kicked out of two schools. And she has a social worker for the third one.

Making a career out of dishonesty isn't acceptable morally. Neither is leaving this legacy.

For ref, I'm not for work entirely and as someone who automates people out of it, I understand that there isn't likely to be enough work to go around one day.

Also I have three children and actually look after them.

ionised• 11 years ago

The problem with that line of thinking is that her 'free' lifestyle comes from the taxes of others.

That causes a lot of resentment among many people. It's basically an abuse of the welfare system.

eveningcoffee• 11 years ago

Hey, could you send me some money as I too would like to spend my time in leisure?

toyg• 11 years ago

reddit's

Forgot to change website after copypasting ?

Anyway, your sister-in-law (who's such a bad person, you let your brother marry her -- maybe your bro is not a saint either, is he? But women make for better targets) is actually quite savvy. Thing is, really, that western society is built by people of privilege tricking us schmucks into breaking our backs for them. She's saying no to all that hypocrisy from first principles. I honestly envy her courage.

wumbernang7• 11 years ago

No I'm comparing the culture here and there. I'm interested to see if a more technically inclined forum has a different set of morals and work ethics.

She is my wife's sister for reference.

You're probably right about being savvy. Interesting perspective.

ZeroGravitas4• 11 years ago

No-one else knows your sister-in-law. The only info we've been given by you is that she's not worked since she had a disabled son 15 years ago. And that they both smoke cigarettes (a heavily marketed, addictive drug that many people of all classes/temperaments still use today).

They both may well be genuinely more evil than Hitler, but you've hardly presented an airtight case on this and in fact are likely to have inspired sympathy for the targets of your rage. Maybe that's why random strangers on the internet label you as a "tory supporter and general inhuman".

dschiptsov• 11 years ago

Intelligence (being well-read, habitual 'mapper') should come before appearance. All these bearded hipsters, imitating the same personage from the "Into The Wild" movie or each other, are so ridiculous, especially in India or Nepal, where they seemed to believe that they belong to some alien super-intelligent race or something. But when you are trying to talk to them, they cannot express anything interesting, but a small set of current memes and cultural codes.

One such hipster once told me that he is from a different tribe of humanity, and commented two minutes later, that "the eachquake was nice, I learned a lot". And he isn't even acting - he is just that.

Status symbols must be not vearable. It must be healthy looks and open-mindedness - the effects of possession of at least some intelligence (evolution do favour looks of healthy youth, not purchased status items marketed as such. Not being able to grasp this simple fact means one isn't qualified even for a hipster).

BTW, real intelligence and real spirituality does not require any special attributes to make it self-evident. On the contrary, it is inversly correlated with appearance - the dreaded-and-tattooed hippues in rags marketed for tourists are the most primitive. Then come yogis, sages and babas. Breaded hipsters comes next.

As for status symbols to impress waiters and clerks, well, they could be much subtle and cheaper that a ₹1 lakh bag. Usually, the matching set of clothing which reflects your personal taste - texture and quality of a fabric, matching colors, simplicity of being good-enough is enough.

erikb2• 11 years ago

Really hard to read for me. I don't know the way the author expresses her ideas is hard to grasp.

The basic idea of course is right: You need to fake status if you don't have it, if you want some of the benefits.

But what is missing is some data. Because if we think that further, you can certainly overspend on that hope that one day someone let's you in on something because you have status. And probably many people do overspend on that (I'm thinking about the golden $10k Apple watch here as an example). There must be a way to evaluate how much is good and when it starts to hurt you. And I guess there should be a lot of science on that.

danans• 11 years ago

There is a comment below the original article which makes the point that even knowing the threshold is itself a form of privilege in the particular case of "dressing to impress".

erikb2• 11 years ago

Which comment do you mean? Ctrl-F for "threshold" and "dressing to impress" didn't yield anything. Skimming the first three comments didn't either.

Also what's the point? I don't really agree with "knowing <X> = privilege" but let's say it's true. Then what? Does that change what should be the best decision? Does it change how we react on incomplete information?

Knowing that there is a threshold at which returns start to diminish is a good point, because it tells you to look for clues of when to stop spending on status symbols. Having an expensive watch might help you, but the $60k watch might not improve your situations 10x of what a $6k watch would do.

Now if we add that the knowledge of the threshold is privilege, what does it change? Of course the person who has that knowledge makes better decisions. But knowing that it is a privilege to know that threshold doesn't give any more change to the decision making process. Or at least I don't see it.

laichzeit02• 11 years ago

Things don't even necessarily have to be expensive though. Someone that knows how to dress will be able to judge you in 5 seconds and clock you for what you're worth. The chest is too big, shoulder divots, sleeves not showing enough collar, why in god's name is it a 3 button, did you really match your pocket square to your tie, etc.

Simple things will betray you, much like accent and non idiomatic English. You might not ever speak to this person, but they will have formed an opinion about you in 5 seconds and poof! an opportunity slips by.

I know this seems "unfair" or maybe people will even say "yeah well if someone is so superficial maybe it's a good thing" these are all just ways of trying to rationalize an irrational world. Rather learn to play the game.

auxym• 11 years ago

Also, for those of you not used to wearing a jacket, please don't button up th last (lowest) button.

starmole• 11 years ago

This is painful to read because it is true. It is very hard to explain privilege. Almost all (good) privileged people have a very hard time of seeing it. But how to fix it? My Fair Lady style? Trickle down? Charity? So far the only thing that worked was Revolution.

giancarlostoro• 11 years ago

There certainly are many approaches to getting ahead if just enough. I suppose some rely on 'status symbols', while others talk their way up the ladder. I don't think this justifies some people's ridiculous purchases of status symbols while they still live in poverty however, especially those who don't use them to gain a leg up in their situation. I feel like that was not considered in the writing of this article, I could be wrong though, or have overlooked it.

dang• 11 years ago

Discussion from 2013: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6647809.

PaulAJ• 11 years ago

This is a continuation of sumptuary laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumptuary_law), which were laws regulating what you could wear depending on your social class. The supposed logic behind these laws was always to stop stupid poor people from buying expensive clothes they couldn't afford, but the real reason was always to preserve existing signals of wealth and class.

tsotha• 11 years ago

Except that it's not a continuation of sumptuary laws because there's a huge difference between a law and individual decisions people make.

AstroChimpHam3• 11 years ago

I grew up poor among other poor people, and it never struck me that anyone was buying expensive stuff because they thought that's what would lead them to a better job or some such. They were buying expensive stuff because they wanted it. There's this new feel-good ideal that it's not poor peoples' fault they're poor, but no one ever supplies data to back it up. Only well-written personal stories. I'm sure it's not a binary, but from personal experience where I grew up, the poor people in my family and around me were poor mostly because they were lazy, wanted expensive possessions, and refused to work the long-game to getting out of poverty.

I'd love to see real data that points to this being the exception.

zfghjk• 11 years ago

There is a small irony in you asking other people for data to back up their arguments, and then making your argument "from personal experience".

FeepingCreature2• 11 years ago

But note that a single counterexample disproves a general law.

MarkMc• 11 years ago

Not really: I think AstroChimpHam made it clear that 'real data' trumps personal experience.

AstroChimpHam3• 11 years ago

No. What I'm saying is people's decisions being one of the biggest determining factors of their fates is the null hypothesis. If you want to prove the alternative hypothesis-- that it's not generally poor people's decisions' fault they're poor, you're going to have to bring data to back-up your alternative hypothesis.

I'd love to believe that alternative hypothesis, but that would be naive and irresponsible without data.

eivarv2• 11 years ago

Believing that it's poor people's fault that they're poor - speaking of things no one ever backs up with data - is uniquely naive (and an extremely simplistic attempt at an explanation).

Also, note that having the quality of being "feel-good" does not invalidate an argument.

When discussing this subject, I find that people mostly tend to really be arguing from how they make sense of the world (anecdotes, philosophy, political ideology, etc.) rather than saying anything useful about the world itself.

For some reason, it also seems that this sort of thinking is especially prevalent (or at least visible) in the U.S., even though it compares poorly to other developed countries.

AstroChimpHam3• 11 years ago

Believing it's most poor people's fault they're poor is the null hypothesis. We generally believe people's decisions matter. It's especially the null hypothesis for me, because this is what I grew up seeing with my own eyes, in my own family. It's even more so because the people I grew up with would have also said "it's not my fault I'm poor," even when I could clearly see them make bad decision after bad decision. Then there's the additional circumstantial evidence of seeing who invests in poor financial vehicles like lottery tickets and playing slot machines.

Yes, I'd love to know these are all exceptions to the rule-- it would make me feel much better about the politics I'd like to believe, but the other camp is going to have to provide the data to back up their alternative hypothesis.

zamalek• 11 years ago

A high school friend of mine wound up working as an "ATM Clark" - essentially the guy in charge of filling ATMs. The salary varies wildly based on how much overtime is done, his take-home salary was usually $2500/month (which lies in the richer portion of the middle class in South Africa). His colleague did no overtime and took home $500/month.

This guy who only earned $500 spent $400 on a loan and insurance for a Golf GTi (one of the status symbol cars in South Africa). My friend who earned 5 times as much drove around in a derelict '92 VW Fox.

So I've seen it first-hand, "stupid poor people spending stupid amounts of money on stupid things." In the same way me and my friend spent stupid amounts of money on our own type of stupid things. We bought smartphones (back in 2005, this was the WinMo days) so that we could tinker with them. Instead of getting a prestige symbols we got toys that we could play with.

Whether or not something is stupid depends on who you ask. If you ask a poor person whether someone buying a nice car is stupid they will probably say "no." If you ask them whether buying a smartphone (pre-iPhone, remember) is a stupid idea they would definitely say "yes." I would guess it speaks about the underlying psychology of wealth: those with no monetary wealth seek approval from others (prestige symbols: cars, handbags, etc.) and those with much seek approval from themselves (toys: fast internet, flashy computers, etc.).

PeterisP• 11 years ago

This is also seen in many Eastern Europe places with flashy cars near crumbling post-WW2 soviet apartment buildings where obviously their (leased) car costs twice or more than any home there. Just because they show off their car for style or status.

cgio• 11 years ago

I loved this part from the article.

That’s how generational wealth happens where I’m from: lose a leg, a part of your spine, die right and maybe you can lease-to-own a modular home.

That was a very powerful sentence.

WalterBright• 11 years ago

People seem to constantly rediscover signaling with clothing. Recall "Dress for Success" which came out in the 1970's, for example.

I know many people who refused to conform to clothing signaling norms, and it has never worked for any of them.

jokoon• 11 years ago

Unfortunately today, integrating in society means being liked and for that, you must blend in and look similar to other people. People feel much stronger when they can see they are part of the larger group, and like to confirm their norms as correct and will always unconsciously exclude minorities or people who are off. Animals do exactly the same thing: groups of dogs will never tolerate cats and vice versa. One cat can tolerate a dog, but never in groups.

That's why law was invented, to put some order into the zoo and transform it into civilization. The real political issue is to make people have faith in society and leave their culture at home.

The hardest difficulty for minorities is to not feel rejected, and to have faith in the law and the democratic system. There has been real historical progress towards legal statuses, but it's true that you can't really prevent people from behaving like social animals and make sure they behave like citizens first, social animal second.

The real intellectual fight, is to systemically crush the idea that some cultures and ways of life are to be thanked for because they brought our society's greatness. I guess the US is a large country with very diverse cultures, and it can be very hard for the federal government to make the union hold into something thriving and prosperous.

The saddest thing is when you hear people defending the founding fathers like they are the sole ideal of america: white catholic conquerors founded america and thus america should be at its image.

areyousure• 11 years ago

Re your last sentence: hardly any Founding father was Catholic.

douche2• 11 years ago

Characterizing the United States as a catholic country is a pretty big misrepresentation. Until the waves of immigration from Ireland and Italy in the mid 19th century, most Americans were protestant of one variety or the other. Part of the reason that Irish immigrants were initially considered "non-white" was because they were Catholics.

ZeroGravitas4• 11 years ago

I think that's his point, before the founding fathers there was another version of (white-european) America, discovered by "catholic conquerors" so people choose which story to tell themselves.

EliRivers• 11 years ago

"Catholic" means "Christian" (well, "church universal", really), although it's often used as a shorthand for "Roman Catholic", being a subset of Catholicism.

Sometimes the distinction is made by a lower case leading "c" for the church universal, and an upper case leading "C" for shorthand of "Roman Catholic".

Here's a Lutheran church using the term in this way: http://web.archive.org/web/20081203192002/http://www.elca.or...

Shivetya2• 11 years ago

My favorite poor decision, tattoos.

I am not talking about the cutesy ankle tattoos, I am taking tattoos that require long sleeves to cover up or worse cannot be hidden. Unless your trying for a job where creativity is king I cannot find many instances where they are acceptable.

pdkl95• 11 years ago

A HN/tech-startup translate this kind of situation: would you reject someone - and maybe not bother looking as hard into their technical qualifications - if they showed up to the first interview in a "stuffy suit" that "obviously wouldn't be a good cultural fit"?

Obviously, I'm stereotyping a bit, but that's kind of the point! Sometimes there are barriers to overcome and middlemen that need to be appeased, and working to overcome these problems is a demonstration of good problem solving skills, even if it looks "stupid" to an outside observer.

The Logic of Stupid Poor People (2013)

Related Stories