Being poor means you do what you gotta do, you take the crap you gotta take and you wonder why being poor also means people feel like they can treat you like garbage.

As far as I can tell, you can replace the word "poor" in that with "rich" and it remains true, at least if you would say "also means some people" instead of "also means people".

Naturally once you replace "poor" with "rich" in that sentence it's only fair to finish it properly with "or at least I reckon they probably would if we didn't live in this gated community with all these security guards".

I been rich, and I been poor. A lot less people treat you like shit when you're rich. A LOT.

You've been so-called middle-to-upper middle class. Very different.

-t

Mine doesn't measure wealth by monetary standards...it's emotional and psychological.

It's quite possible to not have 'any' money and find joy in the world. Millions of people live without funds and they lead lives that are fulfilling. Monks for instance have inner peace that is independent of wealth. There are people who are economically rich that I know that I would describe as being poor.

No one regardless of their economic status has to stand for being treated like shit. People have lie down to be doormats. Personl dignity cannot be taken unless its surrendered or it's for sale.

I think personal dignity can be forcefully taken from people, think of Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib. I suppose tho that it could be confused with the loss of hope.

Mine doesn't measure wealth by monetary standards...it's emotional and psychological.

It's not monetary, exactly, but it is economic. "Poor" isn't a self-esteem question of feeling bad about not having as much as you'd like --- it's a survival question where you find yourself with no better choice than to toss your values aside for a moment and do things that are clearly wrong, even to you, except that you have no realistic choice. E.g., you f'ing well don't want your kid growing up in a neighborhood surrounded by thuggish grey market drug sellers and you f'ing well want to care for your mother inlaw in her dotage -- but today, you need to get momma to fill out the damn social services form in such a way that she'll get a scrip for some pills you can sell to keep your baby supplied with fruit juice.

Talking to a bunch of privileged people, as we are here, I think my descriptions of "poor" must sound like I'm dredging up the really extreme cases from the depths like some kind of after-school-special morality play. Not at all, though. Another aspect of "poor" (as contrasted with just "batshit crazy") is not just that you find yourself demoralized in those ways -- but everyone around your home is pretty close to being in the same boat.

No one regardless of their economic status has to stand for being treated like shit. People have lie down to be doormats. Personl dignity cannot be taken unless its surrendered or it's for sale.

My friends who are poor tend to be extremely dignified -- and with complete justification, in my view. My middle-class friends who are sliding down the economic latter are sometimes dignity-challenged on the way but they tend to get over that after they get over the initial trauma -- and then they start becoming more like my poor friends, in that regard.

Survival, under trauma and/or severe challenge, itself creates dignity (better than just about any other way).

-t

other Agonists, I was never poor, just didn't have an abundance of 'things', but there always was food on the table, clothes on my back and someone that cared that I was alive. Books were free at the library and I loved going to school. My teachers were amazing models.

Mini Ha Ha that collected rags in my neighbourhood was poor. So too was the lady up the street that kept her retarded child in an upside down playpen and the hermit that lived three doors away in the backyard of the boardinghouse that rented rooms to the railroad workers. I consider my childhood very rich for having had the opportunity to be exposed to a mosaic of people that aren't found in economically wealthier neighbourhoods. There were families that spanned several generations that had mothers, fathers, grandparents and children living under the same roof. There were none that had criminal records...all had a source of income of some sort or another. They made the best of what they had and most of their children grew up to be fine adults. There were no classes in my childhood, all were equal, highly individualistic, nonjudgmental, and accepted by each other, which I think people without a great deal of money have attitudes they are blessed with because of their circumstances. There is no snobbery where there aren't many luxuries, because all are in the same boat. I remember those days with fondness...so, "No, I was never poor, nor impoverished, quite the contrary."

I don't usually respond to you, but I'll make an exception right now.

Don't ever tell me what I've been. I have had multiple servants. That's rich. My father was rich when I was young. He lost it, but I remember.

You are presumptious, constantly, and I grow tired of it.

Don't ever tell me what I've been. I have had multiple servants. That's rich. My father was rich when I was young. He lost it, but I remember.

And, God as your witness, you'll never go hungry again. (Frankly, my dear....)

I would define impoverished more like this:

Impoverished is when, to survive, you have to start hustling even though you aren't so inclined: lying, cheating, stealing, screwing friends and relatives, etc. I don't mean lying, cheating, and stealing in some esoteric debatable way -- I mean very basic things like petty thievery on the grounds that baby needs diapers. It's when you have a warrant outstanding for blowing off some petty misdemeaner choice a year ago so, today, you'll turn yourself in because a few months in the pokie will be a spa vacation, relatively speaking, to what you are used to. Impoverishment is impoverishment not because it is frustrating or depressing -- but because it is, literally, demoralizing. It deprives you of moral choices by making mere survival such a questionable thing.

And rich: Rich is when there is enough capital in your family, well enough structured, that it is pretty near impossible for one generation to simply lose it all at the expense of the next generation. It's when you can't move through society without fear of things like being kidnapped. It's when you can't speak freely in public without fear of being sued. It's when the management of your wealth becomes, de facto, a matter of foreign and domestic policies. It is being constantly confronted with a series of vital, ethical questions about which you must make choices and about which you can not have enough information to prevent unintended consequences. It is, literally, demoralizing.

You're right, Ian, that I don't know you or your history -- only what you describe here. "I have had multiple servants" doesn't sound rich, to me. It sounds wasteful -- the kind of mistake frequently found among the upper middle class when they spend principal on convenience features instead of reliable growth. You sound like you come from a family that almost became rich but that, like most who almost become rich, made a few damn mistakes at the last minute and went back the other way.

However we define the terms, I think it is weird that you are so defensive about the issue. You offer up a story of personal tragedy, of a sort: your personal journey from lap-of-luxury (such as it is) to having to bust hump like the next average joe. Why in the world do you take such effete offense ("You are presumptious, constantly, and I grow tired of it") just because someone points out that the extremes of that spectrum, in both directions, lay a bit beyond what you are describing?

Is the point of the question you raised with this article to work towards a better grasp of poverty? Or to help you lick (or pass along) your personal wounds?

-t

You're right, Ian, that I don't know you or your history -- only what you describe here. "I have had multiple servants" doesn't sound rich, to me. It sounds wasteful -- the kind of mistake frequently found among the upper middle class when they spend principal on convenience features instead of reliable growth. You sound like you come from a family that almost became rich but that, like most who almost become rich, made a few damn mistakes at the last minute and went back the other way.
...

Is the point of the question you raised with this article to work towards a better grasp of poverty? Or to help you lick (or pass along) your personal wounds?

and you are still making assumptions that you have no proof of.

and you are still making assumptions that you have no proof of.

You quoted me as saying "[Y] doesn't sound [X] to me. It sounds...." and "Is the point....?"

What assumptions do you think I have expressed there that I ought not have?

-t

You're right, Ian, that I don't know you or your history -- only what you describe here. "I have had multiple servants" doesn't sound rich, to me. It sounds wasteful -- the kind of mistake frequently found among the upper middle class when they spend principal on convenience features instead of reliable growth. You sound like you come from a family that almost became rich but that, like most who almost become rich, made a few damn mistakes at the last minute and went back the other way.

You admit you don't know his history then proceed to make assumptions about his family.

I did not say "Aha! Your family was wasteful...." I said that an image of a wasteful family is what was conveyed to me by the description given.

Do you see the difference?

-t

As usual, what you read into other people's writing says more about you than it does about the person writing. Tiresome and presumptous.

is you playing word games again. These are your words:

You sound like you come from a family that almost became rich but that, like most who almost become rich, made a few damn mistakes at the last minute and went back the other way.

No, you don't see the difference, I see.

From my perspective, this is a bit like being deprived of something fundamental to communication in my circles like, oh, say, subjunctive voice.

Fascinating.

-t

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

Again, you don't know squat. My father lost his money not because of the cost of servants, but because of political issues - he chose the wrong side. Oops. He was a multi-millionaire back in the late 60's and early 70's - at that time, that qualified as rich.

Also, in certain places and at certain levels of rich, servants are pretty close to automatic. If you don't know that, you haven't been really rich yourself.

You also continue to be presumptious. Clearly this article was about what it's like for individuals to be poor. What it's like to be poor. Not about the sociology or economics of poverty. I have written those articles, more than once, and will doubtless do so again.

One of the most tiresome kind of trolls are the "you ought to write the article I wanted written" trolls. The writing here is free, if you don't like it, feel free not to read it. The only people who get to tell me what to write (sometimes) are people who pay my word rates. You don't.

"All publicity is good" and "Don't read your reviews".

You'll convey your perspective through repetition and exposure, not by getting too far into the trenches of any one hard-to-follow argument. You are better off mostly ignoring me until you have a really, really, certain point to thrust home and embarass the f out of me.

Of course, you have to watch your publicity and peak at your reviews -- it's just, you don't have to go off on impulse in response. Nobody has to really know you care about these things and, to the extent you draw attention to it, it detracts from the main project of conveying your perspective.

Aside from that, you do consistently seem to come back to the impression that I disrespect you and/or are otherwise hostile towards you. That's not true, though. If it were true, I don't see why you'd care. If you already know it's not true, I have trouble seeing anything honorable about how you reply. What's with that?

-t

You are better off mostly ignoring me until you have a really, really, certain point to thrust home and embarass the f out of me.

You're self-absorbed and still boring.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

over on my distinguished blog of tolerance, that we've Jonathan Winters'd him(dropped him like a bad habit.)

Even though his comment is at times disruptive, it usually is quite interesting. It does not consist of Maddog's bwahahhahhahs.

Of course I miss Maddog.

So take my view for what it is. It takes a troller and a trollee for trolling.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

Not true at all. I miss maddog too, he owned his words. bwahahahahahahaha ;)

...argued dissent, and mutual tolerance for such dissent. Can't say that I think much of dropping folks for the venal sins demonstrated by dasht - brings to mind certain past actions I was on the receiving end of.

My view is that being obnoxious and obdurate in disagreement simply isn't a capital crime [and yes, Virginia, there is a reason why I think this :P]. As a denizen I would respectfully request of our esteemed editing crew [and I mean that in all sincerity, emphatically not as sarcasm, veiled or otherwise] some transparency - a) was dasht actually turfed, and b) if so, what was the decision making around the action (for clarity, I'm not asking who or seeking to point fingers - I'm asking what process there was, formal, informal, group consensus or what have you). I think we'd all agree that banning is something that happens very infrequently and very reluctantly here - I'd suggest that a little post-mortem is not necessarily a bad thing.

"When intelligence producers realize that there is no sense in forwarding to a consumer knowledge which does not correspond to his preconceptions, then intelligence is through." ~ Sherman Kent

SP replied here.

comment that you don't care to respond to. It takes a trollee who wishes to refute the troll and whose literary honor is offended by him for the discourse to continue.

Suppose a guy is a functional autistic and comes to the sight. What do you do with him if he gets into a persistent mode? It is easy to ignore him on a blog site. It is not like he is in your living room.

Dash was not garbaging up the site with obscenity or advertising anything.

Don't see it, but I ain't no honcho.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

...is a poison pill wrapped in rhetorical candy, perhaps someone should expose it before it kills the discourse.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

"I'm going to redefine the terms you're using to make them mean something that no one else here really accepts, then use these new definitions to tell you you're wrong. Oh, and I think having servants means you're just upper-middle class."

Why in the world do you take such effete offense ("You are presumptious, constantly, and I grow tired of it") just because someone points out that the extremes of that spectrum, in both directions, lay a bit beyond what you are describing?

Because in the process of doing so, you are implicitly nullifying his experience. Or at least reducing his joys and despairs to something less than they are. It's equivalent to being at a social event and him telling an interesting story about both how good he had it and how bad it can get. Then you chime in afterwards saying "That ain't nothing. It can get so much better and so much worse than that. You weren't rich and you weren't poor. And your father screwed up when you were almost rich." It minimizes and degrades.

PS: How the hell can you have servants and not be upper class? Upper-middle class, you might have a cleaning lady and lawncare people that come by every so often. But a servant? Someone who cooks for you everyday? Someone who drives you places? "Jeeves, fetch me my coat?" Give me a break. The only place you can be upper-middle class and have that happen is China--and last time I checked, we're talking about living in the US and Canada.

Because in the process of doing so, you are implicitly nullifying his experience.

Honestly, I think I'm elevating his experience by painting it as closer to universal. It is an "average" experience, for some definition of average. It is also a "profound" experience, as evidenced by Ian's writings. Portraying the profundity of the average: that's high opera, baby.

-t

PS: How the hell can you have servants and not be upper class? Upper-middle class, you might have a cleaning lady and lawncare people that come by every so often. But a servant? Someone who cooks for you everyday?

In the flatter economy a few decades back that was rather more common.

Anyway, the border I would place between "upper-middle" and "rich" has almost nothing to do with what people buy -- it's all about sovereignty. You don't need much sovereignty to get servants.

-t

EOM

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

Shaddup

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

before the crash of a 30-year relationship that I didn't see coming:-)

_{"George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," Shmuley Boteach}

been there, Bud. Ain't good. And in one now, in business. No one wants to live in a one horse town, except those that own the horse.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

One above.
"Impoverish" is to make poor. The semantic difference is entirely different than Tom claimed. That is, Tom was claiming Ian was wrong by finding an invalid excuse to claim he was wrong.

Then he criticizes for missing symptoms. Ooh, my. You can't really be sick, you're not dead yet.

Then his "substitute" claim. Here it is with substitutions:

Being rich means you do what you gotta do, you take the crap you gotta take and you wonder why being rich also means people feel like they can treat you like garbage.

Equivalent? Hell no. Sensible? Still no. Too much Bus(c)h? Still no. Too much Bushmills? Now that's beginning to make sense. Another 5th, and I'm sure it'll be totally clear.

He made a distinction, whether you like his word 'impoverished' or not, and you become the grammar goblin here to avoid the force of his distinction, which could have been simply acknowledged, or left alone. The force is that Ian could add a lot to the list of being poor, given his beginning in what appears to be a kind of destitution, rather than statistical, "poverty line" poverty.

The rest is irrelevant because the security guard remark starts off the pissing.

If Ian wants to pick up "the do what you gotta do" business so as to point out Dash's comparision is invidious, fine; Dash did wiggle out in advance with the word 'some' in front of 'people.'

He may have been thinking of a case where someone rich, alone, is thrust into a unfriendly, poor man's environment and has trouble.

So why go there? Unless you want trouble.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

"while his stories are, to be totally honest, bordering on the clinically insane, it shows some sort of imagination and I for one enjoy reading his loony ramblings. You are entitled to your opinion for sure, but I don't think anyone gives a rats arse about it."

Make "he" whomever you want here:-)

_{"George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," Shmuley Boteach}