User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 23

  1. #1

    Default The Logic of Stupid Poor People

    A friend pointed me in the way of THIS article and I thought it was an interesting read.

    We hates us some poor people. First, they insist on being poor when it is so easy to not be poor. They do things like buy expensive designer belts and $2500 luxury handbags.

    To be fair, this isn’t about Eroll Louis. His is a belief held by many people, including lots of black people, poor people, formerly poor people, etc. It is, I suspect, an honest expression of incredulity. If you are poor, why do you spend money on useless status symbols like handbags and belts and clothes and shoes and televisions and cars?

    One thing I’ve learned is that one person’s illogical belief is another person’s survival skill. And nothing is more logical than trying to survive.

    My family is a classic black American migration family. We have rural Southern roots, moved north and almost all have returned. I grew up watching my great-grandmother, and later my grandmother and mother, use our minimal resources to help other people make ends meet. We were those good poors, the kind who live mostly within our means. We had a little luck when a male relative got extra military pay when they came home a paraplegic or used the VA to buy a Jim Walter house (pdf). If you were really blessed when a relative died with a paid up insurance policy you might be gifted a lump sum to buy the land that Jim Walters used as collateral to secure your home lease. 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.

    We had a little of that kind of rural black wealth so we were often in a position to help folks less fortunate. But perhaps the greatest resource we had was a bit more education. We were big readers and we encouraged the girl children, especially, to go to some kind of college. Consequently, my grandmother and mother had a particular set of social resources that helped us navigate mostly white bureaucracies to our benefit. We could, as my grandfather would say, talk like white folks. We loaned that privilege out to folks a lot.

    I remember my mother taking a next door neighbor down to the social service agency. The elderly woman had been denied benefits to care for the granddaughter she was raising. The woman had been denied in the genteel bureaucratic way — lots of waiting, forms, and deadlines she could not quite navigate. I watched my mother put on her best Diana Ross “Mahogany” outfit: a camel colored cape with matching slacks and knee high boots. I was miffed, as only an only child could be, about sharing my mother’s time with the neighbor girl. I must have said something about why we had to do this. Vivian fixed me with a stare as she was slipping on her pearl earrings and told me that people who can do, must do. It took half a day but something about my mother’s performance of respectable black person — her Queen’s English, her Mahogany outfit, her straight bob and pearl earrings — got done what the elderly lady next door had not been able to get done in over a year. I learned, watching my mother, that there was a price we had to pay to signal to gatekeepers that we were worthy of engaging. It meant dressing well and speaking well. It might not work. It likely wouldn‘t work but on the off chance that it would, you had to try. It was unfair but, as Vivian also always said, “life isn’t fair little girl.”

    I internalized that lesson and I think it has worked out for me, if unevenly. A woman at Belk’s once refused to show me the Dooney and Burke purse I was interested in buying. Vivian once made a salesgirl cry after she ignored us in an empty store. I have walked away from many of hotly desired purchases, like the impractical off-white winter coat I desperately wanted, after some bigot at the counter insulted me and my mother. But, I have half a PhD and I support myself aping the white male privileged life of the mind. It’s a mixed bag. Of course, the trick is you can never know the counterfactual of your life. There is no evidence of access denied. Who knows what I was not granted for not enacting the right status behaviors or symbols at the right time for an agreeable authority? Respectability rewards are a crap-shoot but we do what we can within the limits of the constraints imposed by a complex set of structural and social interactions designed to limit access to status, wealth, and power.

    I do not know how much my mother spent on her camel colored cape or knee-high boots but I know that whatever she paid it returned in hard-to-measure dividends. How do you put a price on the double-take of a clerk at the welfare office who decides you might not be like those other trifling women in the waiting room and provides an extra bit of information about completing a form that you would not have known to ask about? What is the retail value of a school principal who defers a bit more to your child because your mother’s presentation of self signals that she might unleash the bureaucratic savvy of middle class parents to advocate for her child? I don’t know the price of these critical engagements with organizations and gatekeepers relative to our poverty when I was growing up. But, I am living proof of its investment yield.

    Why do poor people make stupid, illogical decisions to buy status symbols? For the same reason all but only the most wealthy buy status symbols, I suppose. We want to belong. And, not just for the psychic rewards, but belonging to one group at the right time can mean the difference between unemployment and employment, a good job as opposed to a bad job, housing or a shelter, and so on. Someone mentioned on twitter that poor people can be presentable with affordable options from Kmart. But the issue is not about being presentable. Presentable is the bare minimum of social civility. It means being clean, not smelling, wearing shirts and shoes for service and the like. Presentable as a sufficient condition for gainful, dignified work or successful social interactions is a privilege. It’s the aging white hippie who can cut the ponytail of his youthful rebellion and walk into senior management while aging black panthers can never completely outrun the effects of stigmatization against which they were courting a revolution. Presentable is relative and, like life, it ain’t fair.

    In contrast, “acceptable” is about gaining access to a limited set of rewards granted upon group membership. I cannot know exactly how often my presentation of acceptable has helped me but I have enough feedback to know it is not inconsequential. One manager at the apartment complex where I worked while in college told me, repeatedly, that she knew I was “Okay” because my little Nissan was clean. That I had worn a Jones of New York suit to the interview really sealed the deal. She could call the suit by name because she asked me about the label in the interview. Another hiring manager at my first professional job looked me up and down in the waiting room, cataloging my outfit, and later told me that she had decided I was too classy to be on the call center floor. I was hired as a trainer instead. The difference meant no shift work, greater prestige, better pay and a baseline salary for all my future employment.

    I have about a half dozen other stories like this. What is remarkable is not that this happened. There is empirical evidence that women and people of color are judged by appearances differently and more harshly than are white men. What is remarkable is that these gatekeepers told me the story. They wanted me to know how I had properly signaled that I was not a typical black or a typical woman, two identities that in combination are almost always conflated with being poor.

    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.

    At the heart of these incredulous statements about the poor decisions poor people make is a belief that we would never be like them. We would know better. We would know to save our money, eschew status symbols, cut coupons, practice puritanical sacrifice to amass a million dollars. There is a regular news story of a lunch lady who, unbeknownst to all who knew her, died rich and leaves it all to a cat or a charity or some such. Books about the modest lives of the rich like to tell us how they drive Buicks instead of BMWs. What we forget, if we ever know, is that what we know now about status and wealth creation and sacrifice are predicated on who we are, i.e. not poor. If you change the conditions of your not-poor status, you change everything you know as a result of being a not-poor. You have no idea what you would do if you were poor until you are poor. And not intermittently poor or formerly not-poor, but born poor, expected to be poor and treated by bureaucracies, gatekeepers and well-meaning respectability authorities as inherently poor. Then, and only then, will you understand the relative value of a ridiculous status symbol to someone who intuits that they cannot afford to not have it.
    I'll plead guilty to thinking conspicuous consumption on that level is gross (although I like to think that my distaste isn't confined to poor people; the filthy rich are pretty much setting the hoops for other people to jump through) and I appreciate the challenge this posed to my assumptions. I find it kind of depressing that you have to spend money you don't have to perform the socioeconomic status you want to occupy before you actually get there. Then again, I guess having new stuff is also fun. :-/

  2. #2
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    One sx/sp


    As soon as I read the quoted statement, I wondered why there shouldn't be hate for a rich person spending $2500 on a hand bag and why that wouldn't be illogical and stupid. I know I hate it when a rich person spends $2500 on a hand bag.

    It's sort of like when some juvenile tells you they did something "because I can". That's not a reason, and it almost always reveals a lack of a good reason. "Because I can afford it" is pretty much the same logic. You could make 20k, 100k, 1000k a year, and it wouldn't make that handbag any more worthy of 2.5k.
    No matter how much money you have, you still could have spent that money on something better.

    And yes, as the article points out, we judge people on these outward appearances. There is a demand to look high class. The higher the better. You do pay a price for accepting things that look poor. The reasoning that singles out poor people for such purposes basically says you have to be rich to do be allowed to do silly, stupid shit, and once you are rich you have every right, but when you're poor, you have much higher standards to live up to. And then the reality is that we make people do that silly stupid shit into hurdles for people to jump over if they want to be accepting into higher classes, so if you don't do silly, stupid shit, you'll never get to be rich enough to be allowed to do it. There is no winning for the poor person.

    I don't think that's remotely accidental, though. All class-based societies have a litany of rituals and codes for separating the rich from everyone else. If everyone else begins to adopt them, the rich create something new. The very purpose of that 25k handbag is to point out that you are richer than other people.
    Go to sleep, iguana.

    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #3
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007


    I'm poor but I only spend on the necessities and I do go out to dinner once a week with friends but its never more than 10 dollars with tip and tax. and I usually make it through the month even.eating out once a week. my are 300 for.groceries and 400 for whatever else so I guess I'm not too bad off actually as my parents pay my rent which I'm grateful.for otherwise I'd be homeless. I also contribute 20 dollars supplies each month

  4. #4
    Senior Member Jaguar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007


    You have no idea what you would do if you were poor until you are poor. And not intermittently poor or formerly not-poor, but born poor, expected to be poor and treated by bureaucracies, gatekeepers and well-meaning respectability authorities as inherently poor.
    There's a group conspicuously missing: The born poor who did something about it and are now rich.
    I don't pass judgement on anyone for how they choose to spend their money. I'm not wired that way.
    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
    — Mark Twain

  5. #5
    Senior Member tinker683's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    9w1 sx/sp


    I do not judge people for being poor. I do not judge people for having catastrophes in their lives that are completely unavoidable or for finding themselves in circumstances they can not avoid.

    I do judge people however for consistently making bad choices. Every now and then..we're all human, it can't be helped. Consistently doing the same thing over and ver again and expecting different results? That's just the definition of insanity.

    There is something to be said for the person who chooses to be frugal and spend their money wisely than on those who spends it on stuff they don't really need.
    "The man who is swimming against the stream knows the strength of it."
    ― Woodrow Wilson

  6. #6
    Senior Member ceecee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008


    This is something I couldn't give less of a shit about. I'm quite sure I wouldn't spend $2500 on a handbag but I would spend $2500 on a vacation, a jet ski or some new rims and snow tires for our truck and I'm sure someone somewhere would find that consumption to be on the level of gross too.
    I like to rock n' roll all night and *part* of every day. I usually have errands... I can only rock from like 1-3.

  7. #7
    morose bourgeoisie
    Join Date
    Mar 2009


    Being chronically poor effects the brain, so poor decisions are made.

  8. #8
    mod love baby... Lady_X's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    9w1 sx/so


    Quote Originally Posted by ceecee View Post
    This is something I couldn't give less of a shit about. I'm quite sure I wouldn't spend $2500 on a handbag but I would spend $2500 on a vacation, a jet ski or some new rims and snow tires for our truck and I'm sure someone somewhere would find that consumption to be on the level of gross too.
    i'd totally spend it on a camera or lens

    thought the article was interesting tho. cool to have a chance to hear that perspective.
    There can’t be any large-scale revolution until there’s a personal revolution, on an individual level. It’s got to happen inside first.
    -Jim Morrison

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008


    I am reminded of a post I made quite a while ago that touched on 'hipsterism', how it's all about buying stuff to "fit in". That's what a lot of Western culture is about. If you own the 'right' things--clothes, electronics, jewellery, cars, real estate, etc.--you literally buy your way into a different social sphere.

    A lot of people prefer the terms "socio-economic class" or "social stratum" or "station" to "social sphere". I prefer the latter because the others imply that each 'class', 'stratum' or 'station' is necessarily better or worse than another. I prefer to think they're mostly just different. And the biggest difference is the stuff you buy in order to fit in.

    The VP the author mentioned, the one who "constructed her job as senior management" by buying a new BMW and looking down on an interviewee who wore a cotton undershirt instead of silk, plays the same game as any poor person looking to get a better job by sinking their money into nicer clothes that they can't really 'afford'. It really is all an image game, and to play in that world of managerial people you need to wear silk instead of cotton and buy a BMW.

    On the other hand,
    Books about the modest lives of the rich like to tell us how they drive Buicks instead of BMWs.
    Eventually people accumulate so much money that they have "fuck-you money": they have so much money that they could conceivably do nothing at all with their lives and survive off of the money made from their money. They could tell anyone in the world "fuck you" for any reason, or no reason at all, because they have enough money that they could conceivably buy whatever or do whatever they want.

    For example the Walton family, of Wal-Mart fame, are known for living 'frugally'. That means they drive Ford pickup trucks and don't buy $2,500 handbags as a matter of course. But they have "fuck-you money". Half a dozen of them have more money than the least wealthy third of the American populace. They're now in a social sphere where they spend their time looking for ways to donate their money to charitable causes, not looking for new cars to spend it on. When you have enough money to buy ten of thousands of BMWs it doesn't matter if you have one or not.

    It's kind of sickening to think that people's opinions of you are swayed by what you buy and it's tempting to reject it all in a show of defiance, but I don't think there's any denying that it's real and you would suffer real repercussions as a result.

  10. #10


    It doesn't bother me that someone would spend 2500 on a handbag. It seems pretty stupid if you don't have the money. But if you have the money, I don't see the issue. In fact, I think it is pretty interesting how value can be created through image. It is much more interesting than mass production and cost cutting.

Similar Threads

  1. [Psychology Other] The Art of Speed Reading People (Paul D. Tieger, Barbara Barron-Tieger)
    By Doomkid in forum Typology and Psychology Book Reviews
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-28-2016, 03:07 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-07-2012, 01:49 PM
  3. [MBTItm] the article of "why smart people often suffer in this world"
    By niki in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 11-27-2008, 01:17 AM
  4. The Logic of Power
    By ygolo in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-20-2008, 01:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO