Money Matters
Apr. 2nd, 2013 08:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ladyspriteApologies for the rant that's about to follow, but....
So I've been thinking a lot recently about social classes, and financial privilege. And I have to wonder - at what point of material well-being does one become incapable of comprehending that there are people whose upbringing did not match theirs?
Because I have a significant handful of friends - good friends, good people - who grew up fairly well-off, who are just incapable of comprehending this. They weren't wealthy, and that's all that they see, and so they feel that they grew up underprivileged. And, by extrapolation, that anyone else who claims the label 'underprivileged' grew up in a situation like theirs.
And to be honest, it frustrates me, because... well, there was a bit more challenge to growing up on food stamps, or with sometimes not enough money for both heat and food, than to growing up with only one summer home and no in-ground pool.
I grew up lower-middle class. Food stamps, reduced-price school lunches, hand-me-down clothes from my cousin who was sixteen years older than me. And yet I understand that it could have been a hell of a lot worse, and that there were people out there who DID have it a lot worse - we had enough food (mostly cheap stuff like Hamburger Helper, but it was food), we had a phone and tv.
And I think that's what confuses me the most. It seems like, at some level of privilege, people become incapable of recognizing that some people have it worse. And I don't understand how this happens, or at what point - or when the assumption becomes that everyone starts life off with more or less the same resources as you.
(And on that note, don't get me started on 'We're not rich, we WORKED for our money!' So did my family. The only difference is we started out with a lot more debt and a lot fewer resources, and earned a lot less. We weren't poor because we were lazy; we were poor because no one paid for our education or sent us out into the world with a stock portfolio and a trust fund.)
That said... ultimately what I want is to understand, and figure out how to explain. Because it's no one's fault that they grew up in different circumstances, and ultimately, as I said, they're good people. But I think that finding a way to communicate clearly this difference in experiences and circumstances would go a long way to improving the situation in this country.....
So I've been thinking a lot recently about social classes, and financial privilege. And I have to wonder - at what point of material well-being does one become incapable of comprehending that there are people whose upbringing did not match theirs?
Because I have a significant handful of friends - good friends, good people - who grew up fairly well-off, who are just incapable of comprehending this. They weren't wealthy, and that's all that they see, and so they feel that they grew up underprivileged. And, by extrapolation, that anyone else who claims the label 'underprivileged' grew up in a situation like theirs.
And to be honest, it frustrates me, because... well, there was a bit more challenge to growing up on food stamps, or with sometimes not enough money for both heat and food, than to growing up with only one summer home and no in-ground pool.
I grew up lower-middle class. Food stamps, reduced-price school lunches, hand-me-down clothes from my cousin who was sixteen years older than me. And yet I understand that it could have been a hell of a lot worse, and that there were people out there who DID have it a lot worse - we had enough food (mostly cheap stuff like Hamburger Helper, but it was food), we had a phone and tv.
And I think that's what confuses me the most. It seems like, at some level of privilege, people become incapable of recognizing that some people have it worse. And I don't understand how this happens, or at what point - or when the assumption becomes that everyone starts life off with more or less the same resources as you.
(And on that note, don't get me started on 'We're not rich, we WORKED for our money!' So did my family. The only difference is we started out with a lot more debt and a lot fewer resources, and earned a lot less. We weren't poor because we were lazy; we were poor because no one paid for our education or sent us out into the world with a stock portfolio and a trust fund.)
That said... ultimately what I want is to understand, and figure out how to explain. Because it's no one's fault that they grew up in different circumstances, and ultimately, as I said, they're good people. But I think that finding a way to communicate clearly this difference in experiences and circumstances would go a long way to improving the situation in this country.....
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2013-04-03 06:38 pm (UTC)That is true. But that's part and parcel with being careful using stereotypes. The general classification is useful, but you have to take care that an individual you're talking to actually fits the classification. We're talking in sorthand for purposes of illustrating points, not threatening to apply those shorthands to living individuals without further qualifying.
However, here's a note - say someone's got a second home, and now, they're in debt. Setting aside recent predatory mortgages for a moment, that second home is still an indication of wealth - this person has resources enough to get a second home, which is more than someone who cannot afford a *single* home has. As the old adage goes - the way to get a bank to loan you money is to prove you already have money.
And, while the edge cases are still notable, it is important to realize that there are some break-points in the nation's wealth distribution. It isn't a nice smooth curve from low to high. I will have to see if I can find a reference...
no subject
Date: 2013-04-05 06:10 pm (UTC)Setting aside recent predatory mortgages for a moment, that second home is still an indication of wealth - this person has resources enough to get a second home, which is more than someone who cannot afford a *single* home has. As the old adage goes - the way to get a bank to loan you money is to prove you already have money.
I would say that this person had, at one time, resources enough to get a second home.
While one might think that if someone's income/resources changed substantially they would sell the second home that they could no longer afford, I think that might depend on the person's job and what they were expected to be able to do/show as a {insert job here}. While that may sound crazy, I can think of people in various positions who are, even today, expected to entertain colleagues -- in their home. Or, over the summer, in their summer home at the beach/in the mountains/at the lake. They would perceive not being able to do this as detrimental to their career and, as a result, even more detrimental to their income -- even though they're living on Ramen while trying to keep both homes.