a lot of society's problems come from people in power and/or wealth projecting their anecdotal, perhaps personally bitter experiences (like yours with your mother) onto everyone that isn't making a healthy wage. It's over 40 million people, we are not all like your mother.
Obviously everyone is different. This is why I asked for other points of view for a better sample size.
That doesn't change that I had both parents and teachers who cared about me, educated me, disciplined me, and enabled me to succeed.
> As someone who grew up in relatively abject poverty, most of the positive things in my life have only come from within, due to my determination to succeed despite numerous setbacks.
There is nothing about my success in my adult life that has only come from within. Even my determination isn't mine and mine alone. Everything about my success is down to the opportunities that were afforded to me, to enable me to have that determination and outlook. My parents, my teachers, and my peers throughout my upbringing and adult life have all played a part. Nobody exists in a vacuum.
I am immensely privileged to have had the amount of support I have had. I expect the vast majority of commentators on this board have had similarly privileged lives. The people stuck (either by 'choice' or by 'circumstance') most likely have not.
At the risk of sounding like a <insert pejorative du jour here>, check your privilege, appreciate it for what it is, and try not to look down on those that didn't have the same opportunities that you did.
You're arguing a strawman. You are introducing absolutes into a conversation which was purposefully framed as fluid. For example, I said most of the positive things. Your post is built upon the premise that I believe all positive things in my life came only from within, however you said the word only, not me.
I am immensely privileged to have had the amount of support I have had.
That's great... almost comes off as bragging, but okay...
check your privilege, appreciate it for what it is, and try not to look down on those that didn't have the same opportunities that you did.
...Seriously? You are literally coming from a place of higher privilege and looking down on me. You are projecting your own fortune onto me and consequently expecting the same attitude. I have not had such fortune as you, in fact most people haven't.
I don't need to check my privilege, I am aware of everything I have and wake up every day thankful I don't live in a place like Saudi Arabia. But we aren't talking about Saudi Arabia. We are talking about America, and our conversation about privilege is relative to America. And relative to America, I have lived in abject poverty for most of my life.
I may also have not been sufficiently clear in my messaging. I am talking from the perspective of someone born and raised in a "first world" western developed democracy similar in many ways to the USA (in this instance, the UK).
> I am immensely privileged to have had the amount of support I have had.
The intent here is to drive the point that the support I have received is not financial, and while coming from a financially wealthy family is hugely advantageous to future financial success, there are many other variables in play that are not financial.
When I talk about the support I have, I am recognising the time and effort other people have given me.
Having good parents isn't a right. It's entirely luck of the draw. The same largely applies to your teachers. It really shouldn't, but that's what the situation looks like today. If you're in a good school district, your chances of success are significantly better than if you're not.
I'm not talking about Saudi Arabia, I'm talking about being immensely grateful that not only were my parents incredible, hard working people, who did the best they could with what little they had; and that my teachers, overworked and underpaid, never gave up on me, even when I was a total shit in school, and persevered to ensure that I actually got a good education.
My relative financial poverty during my upbringing doesn't change any of that. I still attribute my success to my upbringing. Not the (lack of) money, and not myself.
And some have neither money or the good upbringing. I was privileged enough to have parents who were able to keep a full-time job (even if it was a minimum wage one) most of my life. However, I would say mine were wildly poor on every other front. In terms of their own education, ability to parent, and most every other front beyond managing a positive bank account balance - they were poor. (Didn't stop my mother from racking up over $10,000 in credit card debt because she didn't know how they worked I guess)
I would align myself with soulofmischief in terms of the view on determination. It was purely my determination more than anything that lead me to getting to where I am now. (Beyond the basics like how I didn't grow in a war torn country where clean water was a scarcity) I've hit pretty much every setback a person in a first world country could give and persevered through it. Sometimes it taking years of incredible pain for any kind of payoff. I wouldn't attribute my success to my upbringing at all and neither would anyone who knows me even a little. Not being in abject poverty probably had some minor benefits for me but considering I had lived near that for the first 8-10 years of my life, I wouldn't consider it a huge amount of consequence. In fact - I thought those years were probably more pleasant than the later years! The only difference from going from near poverty to lower middle class was the age of the house since my parents didn't have any addictions besides nicotine and alcohol. (Alcoholism is ?probably? easier to deal with than an opioid addiction - but I only know the experience of dealing with the former combined with PTSD)
A little quote from a text I recently received: "You are exceptional to be where you are given where you came from. That said, the working class chip on your shoulder will hold you back from achieving what these people can achieve. You gotta get rid of that chip. (It's that chip and the behavior it causes that puts you on the edge of being fired. You aren't behaving the way these one percenters are behaving and they want to punish you for it.)"
My point is this: Don't underestimate determination. Upbringing in all forms is very important but a person with exceptional determination can overcome so much. It doesn't mean that it's fair or that it's even worth it but it's amazing how far someone can get with the refusal to give up. Something that I'd think people here on HN would be all about since this is owned by a startup incubator...
I am either a bargainer, a clueless, or a sociopath (in the context of organization). I will never be a bargainer, life is too short! I'm not clueless and middle management is not for me. Only one path left.
I reached this decision through information like this. Perhaps Ms. Brown needed something similar.
The truth is, I think, nobody perfectly optimizes their prospects. People are people and people like to be in their social groups and compete in their social groups, which puts you on a track to a specific future.
Kids from middle-class families don't have to abandon their social circle to become white-collar workers, they can just be comfortable with their friends and "fail" and become a depressed white-collar worker in a not so cool company with only O.K. salary. There are numerous movies about people on this path.
When kids from an affluent background choose to stay comfortable with their friends, they "fail" and become spoiled brats. Usually portrayed as d-bags who don't live a fulfilling life and simply spend their daddies money on drugs and luxury.
When a kid from a lower-income background chooses to stay comfortable with their friends, they end up just as miserable but they also have survivability issues.
This is why "going to college" is such a monumental part in life: It gives you an option to change social circles and if you still fail, at least you can fail in a bit more comfortable house and car.
I hear that college is inaccessible for many Americans, maybe they should fix that. Equal social comfort opportunity can create a much more just society.
I'm not asking for perfect optimization. Getting out of a minimum wage salary in a 15-year span doesn't require much optimization for most people. So I am asking about the cases where it does.
I hear that college is inaccessible for many Americans, maybe they should fix that. Equal social comfort opportunity can create a much more just society.
Some states offer free tuition. However in the state I grew up in, we had to get scholarships based on scholastic merit.
I worked hard and aced my tests which lead to a full 4-year scholarship along with room and board and an on-campus job, plus I qualified for government aid due to my situation (living on my own since 16 due to homeless parents).
Right before graduation a vindictive teacher changed my final project grade from a 100 to a 0, ignored school policies as well as ignored a doctor's note for excused absences, and the school administration promised they would follow up.
Well, they didn't, and on the day I received my final report card I had an F in a class I should have received a B in, and had to forfeit all of my state scholarship money. I ended up not being able to afford college and was homeless and very sick for a year after high school until I was able to get on my feet and pursue my own education online.
This is an example where working hard was not enough, and I got completely railroaded by a system designed to keep the impoverished as such. If I or a family member could have afforded a lawyer, I would have gotten my grade fixed and been able to attend college.
How are you now ?
1. Brain development of teenagers is not complete.
2. Information available to sub college age kids is not perfect.
If you don't believe in free will, the only question is what combination of mechanics and information serves to produce the observed outcome.
What people choose is how comfortable they would like to be against their odds and people who choose to have nice social lives in their current circle end up staying in this circle.
Each circle have different failure modes, I won't argue that the lady in the article failed in her circle, she just didn't move up in the ladder. Failing in the low-income circle doesn't look like that, failing in that circle is overdosing in a meth den or ending up in jail. She actually seems to be doing fine but probably could have been doing much better if she had chosen to abandon her original social environment.
The life might give you fries but you can refuse that, stay hungry for a bit more and demand nuggets if that's what you want, ignoring your friends rolling their eyes for you being a drama queen. You may have to endure sitting on another table, being left alone by your friends who had their launch and left. This is the price you pay for jumping social circles and eating in a college cafeteria usually eases the pain.
On the other side of the coin, I've seen people who have worked at a small company because nobody else will hire them, the company gets aquired and the old boss retires, and they end up in a cushy situation a the big company. In fact, I've seen this happen multiple times and it was definitely not the master plan of these individuals. It was just a lucky break.
Your tone implies that I don't understand the disparity of the human condition. I lived my entire life very impoverished and at times homeless. I come from a very abusive household and grew up in a rural area with little prospects. I've never caught a break. I saw a way out, computers, and I took it. I was able to pivot to a better career by building skills in my free time.
> I saw a way out, computers, and I took it. I was able to pivot to a better career by building skills in my free time. To be able to pull that off requires a certain amount of natural aptitude that is not a given for most people.
I respect people who have been able to find a way out of tough situations, but I also respect those who keep pushing through tough circumstances even when they haven't been able to find a way out.
As the poet warrior Lil B The BasedGod once stated, "I'd rather be a broke rapper than wash some dishes."
Well, I ignored that advice once because I figured my dish-washing skills were more employable than my street cred, and ended up having to quit that job because I developed carpal tunnel from being overworked. Several years later, I still suffer from the consequences and have to be vary careful not to injure myself at my desk job. I don't think physical or mental burnout gets anyone anywhere good. At least my former boss ended up having to get surgery for carpal tunnel himself sometime later.
This together with a conjecture that in most cases the average person has indeed the possibility of upward mobility. A conjecture that was posed with an invite to hear opposing view.
A discussion of how much we should expect help from outside is important (and I believe soulofmischief would agree), but it is not relevant to how to improve your own life in the situation that help does not exist yet.
Personally I think we should separate the morality issue of being poor/rich from the mechanics of how people become/remain poor.
The anectotal example he is asking for is in the very article we're discussing. Not that she has made no mistakes, but that (as has been stated several times in these comments) such mistakes are extremely punishing when you are this poor.
As for the discussion on societal help, I think it's very relevant, because the very definition of working yourself up from poverty means climbing the societal ladder. As such, the society you're in is intrinsic to improving your situation. It's a fallacy to say that you are completely in control of your own destiny and luck - the society around you is always helping and/or harming your efforts.
Every person has an obligation to themselves to improve their life as best they can, but a society that ensures basic needs are met is the best springboard for being able to do so.
The truth is that you're being way overcritical. Nothing about my post is clear as day, the only comments I made regarding Ms. Brown were in the form of questions. Are you going to help answer those questions or just light me up with your virtue signalling?
It's clear we're approaching this issue from completely different fundamental positions. To me, your question is uninteresting because my underlying belief is that all human beings that live in a society deserve a life where they don't have to worry about fundamental needs, such as food, shelter and hygiene.
I think everyone should receive enough money from their jobs to afford decent, nutritional food, a small apartment, and hygiene articles. Even if they are hard-working or complacent, stupid or intelligent.
We have to learn how we can take personal agency despite hardships, and instill this agency in others, so that we can stand our ground and ensure a better economic outcome for our children.
I can say that one thing which did help me was that even though I grew up impoverished, I still had a few middle-class friends whose relative wealth "rubbed off on me", if you will. And I had a handful of teachers whose participation extended past the obligations of their jobs and who were ready to write letters of recommendations at a moment's notice to any institution and give me space to learn in my own way.
But these bonds were formed with the express intention of networking and while I am thankful for the help I've received from these people, I also recognize that I would have not received this help if I were generally a dick to people around me and didn't seek out friendships with useful people.
If we can discuss these kinds of things and reach a general consensus on what the obstacles are and how to overcome them, this information could be critical to others in their struggle. What information is Ms. Brown missing?
So clearly, everyone can follow that same path, right?
It is a failure on society's part that free career counseling and mentoring isn't mandatory, however as individual agents we must also take personal agency and make up for the shortfalls of society.
Personal agency isn't all that there is. It wasn't the nail's fault that it broke. I bent it and kept hammering it down. I pushed it beyond what it was supposed to be used for. Sure, a different nail would have survived, but in the end it was my fault. A roofing or masonry nails would have probably been able to put up with the abuse (but caused bigger holes), but I was using a drywall nail. Was it the right nail for the job? Eh, in the end it worked out and my picture hasn't fallen down. I mean I don't have any expensive pictures or frames, so I'm still just going to grab whatever nail looks like it will work from my box. But I also have two measuring tapes now.
I didn't go to preschool, but I did go to a local Head Start after qualifying.
I went to 5 kindergartens because I kept getting handed around relatives, and at one point I was even kidnapped by a relative before again being rescued and changed schools. After finally staying in one place for more than a few weeks, teachers saw that I had arithmetic down and put me in a mathathon. I came in second because I was a brat and didn't want to use counting blocks, preferring to rely on mental math. This planted the seed for the person who beat me to become a childhood rival, which helped immensely in my extra-curricular pursuit of education. We were always neck to neck in scores for everything. We each read 2-3 books a week to compete in Accelerated Reader scores. I think having a rival really made a difference in my motivation.
One issue with children is they often lack motivation of any kind, and if you look towards their parents you will see the same thing. The motivation to best my rival was really an internal motivation to prove to myself that I could be great at anything I put my mind to. I don't know where this internal motivation comes from. Is it something that can be consistently instilled in others?
I went to a similarly large number of middle and high schools, bouncing around a lot between family members, my atheism being a point of contention among my relatives. I actually attended both the worst-ranked high school in my state which is often ranked worst in education in the country, so basically one of the worst high schools in the country, and I also attended one of the top dozen elite high schools of the country.
The disparity is indescribable. On the bad end, half of my classes were a revolving door of substitute teachers with no curriculum given to them, the other half were just the teacher yelling over students who were yelling over each other, throwing things, smoking cigarettes, and playing music on their phones in the middle of class. Regular police raids and schoolwide body searches. Massive school board corruption. And I do have sympathy. I want them all to succeed and be happy. The heat map for high test scores very often conspicuously radiated from my position in the classroom.
In the end, it really came down to the desire to learn. I was not allowed to use the computer for anything not school related for most of my childhood (it's the devil's silicon), and so I learned how to hack computers, sideload applications, circumvent firewalls, gain root access, etc. so that I could sneak out in the middle of the night and learn about things that interested me like 3D modeling, graphic design, music, programming, and general web geek culture. After school, my idea of a fun time was hanging out at the library. I even had dates there. My entry into an elite boarding school was entirely merit-based and paid for by the state. The school is open up to anyone in the country however and there are other schools just like it.
If you don't start out with wealthy family or relatives to bail you out of emergencies, unexpected expenses of just a couple hundred dollars are devastating and can take months to recover from. Not to mention all the more subtle network driven benefits like getting your foot in the door somewhere or training in professional culture norms and lessons in navigating bureaucracy
When you work a physically demanding low wage job without that fallback, thinking about anything but survival (literally feeding yourself and loved ones -- sometimes including parents) at the end of the day is unlikely. And the smallest lapses in judgement end up being far more catastrophic.
This was my reality for about a decade. I worked in the San Francisco Bay area in grocery stores and restaurants, and held multiple full time minimum wage jobs concurrently.
I had PTSD from a young age, didn't prioritize my formal education after high school (let alone during school), self medicated with drugs and alcohol. Certainly made bad decisions.
I randomly picked up a trigonometry book in my early 20s, was excited by the fact that, given some agency in how I approached the material I could, in fact, understand it -- and eventually self taught up to calculus before deciding to go back to school. I was accepted to UC Berkeley as a transfer student when I was about 26, transferred and studied pure math... While still working two jobs to survive, dealing with housing insecurity as my landlord started aggressively raising my rent, and figuring out how to best allocate the $300 or so leftover after rent and bills were paid.
So yeah, I ended up dropping out. I spent a couple years coming home from my very physical near min wage jobs exhausted but still stayed up late into the night teaching myself to code by building shit in Python and Node, learning SQL and CS concepts.
Doing this was not the cake walk the manic learn-to-code survival bias narratives on Medium might have you think. It took years and involved significant sacrifice to my health to forgo the sleep that I did, and ultimately my success boiled down to someone taking a chance on me. Now my financial calculus is drastically different. Make no mistake though: if I were much older, had a child, were non-white, non-male, had a more severe disability, or had any more unexpected critical expenses over a few hundred dollars, it's entirely possible I would still be broke and toiling away in kitchens
I was able to change my circumstances, but it took many, many years, and a lot of backtracking whenever circumstances (even plenty beyond my control) shifted.
And it required me to effectively make the best possible decision at all times. One thing I find interesting about your question is the implication that fallibility in someone's decision making process means they deserve poverty, and all the horrible shit that comes with it (like housing and food insecurity, and even bring forced to contend with dangerous conditions during pregnancy).
I am no less fallible in my judgement today than I was when I was broke, the difference is that today I can afford to make bigger mistakes.
Anyway, I hope if anything my story helps you re-evaluate that particular point.
> I am no less fallible in my judgement today than I was when I was broke, the difference is that today I can afford to make bigger mistakes.
Nail on the head. People with money make just as many (if not more) mistakes with their cash than people who are struggling on minimum wage. They just don't feel it the same. Most people posting on HN aren't going to struggle to pay their bills if they go for coffee today, or even everyday this month.
You've really never made 1 bad decision, or 10, in your life?
I have plenty of bad decisions, total screwups even, in my history. Some of them were from being petulant, or naive. Some because I was depressed. Yet I'm a white collar educated professional, I'm part because I made some good decisions, and also because that's the environment I was born into, so I was taught how to succeed in that world.
Why do we expect the poor to be paragons of perfect decision making, when the more privileged can make a normal human level of mistakes and still retain their position?
Random fluctuations in decision quality average out over time to reveal a smooth function of decision-making prowess.
The implication is that I expect people of reasonable intelligence to do whatever, and I mean whatever, they have to do within ethical boundaries in order to increase their economic opportunities. I don't need a crash course in the history of racial socioeconomic exploitation in the US.
Ask any successful black entrepreneur in the US if they agree with me.
But we're only here to discuss those who are capable, and why it is they might not be taking advantage of upward mobility.
As for your second point: I wasnt aware we're only here for that? That's in any case not my agenda.
That was the discussion my post opened up. So if we're going to discuss anything here together, it's going to be that.
How can you believe in UBI and still believe that it's up to private initiatives to care for those who can't provide for themselves?
UBI does not currently exist, and the only reason it will ever come to exist is if we all take personal agency and revolt against the current status quo maintained by CorpGov.
Until people like Ms. Brown are provided the education and motivation they need in order to fight for a secured future for posterity, these problems will continue to get worse.
It's not easy. It's not fun. It's not ideal. But life and liberty come at a cost, sweat and blood, and if you are not willing to pay those costs or assist others in paying them, you do not necessarily deserve life and liberty.
I'm not talking about daily bad decisions. I'm talking about things like: failing a college course needed for my degree program because of a bout of depression, but having parents who would pay for me to take the class again to pass it. I did that. A lot of people with professional parents have done that.
The poor and the working poor don't have that kind of safety net. The personal consequences of failure are far greater for them, and they experience those consequences at high rates, which one way they can get stuck in the rut of poverty for a long time.
Just last week I had someone explode on me Thanksgiving night and physically assault me for a prolonged period of time, while saying things about my poverty and how I was born in poverty and would die in poverty, and trying to blame me for every bad thing that has happened in my life.
This is a person who has been to jail twice for federal property damage and a DUI, who has had several cars given to him by his parents, and who had to resort to a contract with the military in order to straighten himself out. He couldn't hold a job for the longest time and would steal from everyone around him. His parents have helped him again, and again, and again, while mine were just not there.
When a meth-dealing police officer who often stalked my friends and I planted drugs on me at the scene of an accident, I didn't have parents to back me up. Probably a dozen friends who had a parent that was a lawyer, but no one offered to help. I was railroaded by the system and received the maximum possible incarceration time. It didn't matter that I had witness testimony; I didn't have money.
So I am aware of how a socioeconomic safety net works. I am aware of the classist mentalities which keep these systems in place. If you aren't going to provide meaningful anecdotal data or answer my question, then please refrain from giving me a crash course in socioeconomics like the other couple dozen posters who beat you to the punch.
To me it sounds like you're saying, "why doesn't she live closer to her workplace?" which carries with it a kind of subtext of blame. Reading the article a few possible explanations for her choice come to mind.
The author mentions she lives with her boyfriend's parents. Probably this is the cheapest possible living arrangement available to her. Living closer would probably require her to live independently, which tends to be more expensive. This may be compounded by more expensive rents closer to her place of work, which turns out to be a common problem for the working poor and an age-old cruelty of capitalism: Poor people have higher transportation costs -- both in terms of time and money -- because they can only afford to live far from urban centers where their jobs usually are. It's just one of the many ways the old saying "it's expensive to be poor" turns out to be objectively, measurably true.
It's also totally possible that none of the above applies and the author is not being smart with her money, or may have a drug habit, or may be "complacent". But we certainly shouldn't assume these things about her, because we just don't know her circumstances.
Apologies if this comes across as pedantic, but I think the mistake you may be making is projecting your narrow personal experience of your mother's problems onto a complete stranger, whose circumstances seem quite different than your mother's based on the article (the admittedly limited information we have about the author's situation).
It's heartening to see that you recognize your perspective may stem from your own problems with empathy. The author David Foster Wallace has written much (an understatement) about empathy and awareness, but probably the best short work of his about these subjects is this speech. I still find it to be a really good reminder of all kinds of things:
That was not what happened; an anecdote was offered as an example and other anecdotes were requested as counterexamples.
I'm confused by the tendency of you and other users to call a post which is literally asking for other anecdotes of economic struggle to be projecting and indicative of a narrow mindset. I was simply providing my own data point to start. The very act of asking for other perspectives is not what I would call narrow-minded. This kind of response is why people are afraid to open up to others.
In fact, in this entire reply thread only one user bothered to actually share a story of economic strife, which even acknowledged fault on their part (no one is perfect). Meanwhile, tons of comments criticizing me for my point of view when I am literally asking people to change it. One user even called me sociopathic and then proceeded to offer an even more callous point of view while relating that they do not come from a position of poverty at all.
It's heartening to see that you recognize your perspective may stem from your own problems with empathy.
No, that is not what I said. I do not have problems empathizing with others, and I do not appreciate that extrapolation. This is a very specific situation I have trouble empathizing with. David Foster Wallace was a great author and the world misses him.
I, on the other hand, desire social accolades. The emperor's new clothes are beautiful.
I’m an emergency room doctor (part of the time). Due to the advantages I had of birth, gender, country of origin etc, I live a great life, most of which has been because I took every advantage; cf. many of my peers from school who squandered it.
I also work in emergency departments, in a country where anyone can come to the emergency department for treatment, and I am continually frustrated by the lack of agency many people display in changing their circumstances.
Many, many problems in many people’s lives could be solved by slicing the Gordian Knot - but neither society or you benefit from such a pessimistic view of others
Ie a person in a relationship with someone clearly toxic. Or experiencing domestic abuse. The external answer is ‘leave’, the person doesn’t.
The obese patient - walk, change diet.
The representing twenty year old with third presentation cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome - pretty much every time you smoke pot you are going to experience abdominal pain and vomiting, you cannot smoke! How are you not getting the message!
The person spending 5 hours on a bus to work 2 shifts... ?? Is this a rational choice?
It's easy to mistake ignorance for lack of intelligence, which in itself is just ignorance on your part. We can't fault one another for ignorance, and casting judgment serves nothing but your own ego.
It’s not about thinking we’re better than them — which is an ambiguous moral statement. It’s recognizing we have a substantially greater ability than them and viewing that as a responsibility we owe to those in society less capable, and then to take care of them.
Can someone give me an anecdotal example of how this could come to be without some fault in Brown's decision-making process?
For starters, I've always heard that commute time is inversely proportional to career mobility. I made it a rule not to work anywhere farther than half an hour away. And that is the absolute maximum which was necessary when I lived rural area. Currently, I work remote, which has indeed provided more time for further career training.
My mother has worked at the same minimum-wage food joint for almost eight years. She tells me it's because she's "comfortable" and friends with everyone there. Personally, I think it affords her the time and lack of responsibility needed in order to engage in non-moderated drug use. This was certainly the reason she was usually unemployed and unable to provide the most basic resources for me as a child. If I bring up this or her other time-sucking addictions such as mobile gaming / simulated gambling, she becomes very defensive.
Regardless of the reason, comfort breeds complacency. Complacency leads to not making a meaningful change to your career trajectory in a 15-year period. As someone who grew up in relatively abject poverty, most of the positive things in my life have only come from within, due to my determination to succeed despite numerous setbacks. Sometimes I find myself having difficulty empathizing with people who seem reasonably intelligent but have been in the same situation for 10-20 years.