11mo ago

Dont get it twisted.

You're viewing a single thread.

208 comments

Why do we keep trying to pervert defined terms?
The working poor are those who work at least 27 weeks a year and still have income below the poverty line.
- Because that definition is woefully inadequate to describe the conditions of people experiencing poverty.
  
  I’m not sure how broadening it to include like half the country helps them?
  Lots of people live paycheck to paycheck because they have to - other people live paycheck to paycheck because they want to drive a BMW and have a house 50% larger they can afford. They’re not the same.
  
  There is a range of working class. Some get paid more for their work. They are still working to survive.
  As many of the higher wager earners disagree with how the lesser wage earners spend their meager earnings as the less wager earners disagree with the high wager earners.
  This is crab mentality. You need to unlearn yours or accept yourself as part of the problem. Some may have larger claws than others but we are all crabs in the same bucket.
  
  I’m not arguing we aren’t all crabs in a bucket - but telling someone who’s working poor that the guy making 5-10x as much as them and still living paycheck to paycheck just like them doesn’t help anyone?
  Nor does it accurately represent how much worse their situation is?
  
  It's not about representing how good or bad a worker has it on the spectrum of working class. It's about recognizing a class of lifeway that two extreme ends share.
  Put it this way, you have housecats who are pampered and treated to the finest food and veterinary care, and housecats who are left to limp around pathetically getting barely enough food.
  But they're both pets.
  It has nothing to do with how well they're treated, it's just what they are.
  
  I think if you asked the two cats they might tell you something else.
  I know which one I’d prefer to be.
  They might even tell you’re they’re not the same. And one cat would kill a removed to be the other cat.
  
  The point isn't to erase the difference between the two, it's to get those on the "good" end of the spectrum to realise they have more in common with those on the "bad" end, than their owners. "There but for the grace of god go I" kind of stuff.
  It's about class solidarity. If the two ends can recognise how similar in kind (if not in material comforts) they are, then those with more power can bargain to get those with less a better life.
  
  But I can be both simultaneously? I can feel solidarity with someone while acknowledging we aren’t the same, I’m fantastically in a better position and my lived experience is nothing compared to theirs?
  Telling someone who’s food insecure making $15k/yr and the dude who’s 1 week from bankruptcy making $80k/yr don’t have much in common life experience wise, and the dude making $15k would trade in a heartbeat. Because they’re actually starving.
  
  I agree, except that I think the comparison is useful and does not belittle the the materially worse conditions of someone who is worse off.
  I'm just going to resort to analogy: it's like saying we have a shared humanity with someone on death row. Saying we share something is a connection between us. It's not saying the differences between us are trivial.
  But I can be both simultaneously? I can feel solidarity with someone while acknowledging we aren’t the same ...
  I agree 100% with this
  
  It helps win elections
  
  Fast forward a few years and the size of house I will be able to afford is a shoebox.
  
  Oh man you can still afford any house at all where you are? Lucky :(
  
  Getting terribly close to a rendition of the 4 yorkshiremen.

208 comments