• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why are today's poor (U.S.) more miserable than a century + ago?

Why are today's poor more miserable?


  • Total voters
    41
  • Poll closed .
Do you actually have any evidence of this?

No. It's posed this way to generate thought and discussion, not to prove a claim or opinion.

The poor a century ago didn't have cars,air conditioning, heating, refrigeration, food stamps, welfare, good public education, cellphones with government life line services,TVs, and many other things.

Nor were they aware that they lacked these things, because these things did not exist. We're not pouting today that we don't all have our own personal robot that does all our chores for us, because they largely do not exist. Maybe this speaks to why (I'm presuming) the poor today are more miserable (psychologically, I mean) despite their increased standard of living, than they were a long time ago.

People in other countries must be screaming that is not poor. Your idea of miserable must be different than ours

State of mind vs. standard of living. I'm taking about state of mind. A middle class person can be psychologically tortured about his/her normal life, and a person in poverty can be happy-go-lucky and at peace with his/her surroundings. When I said "miserable" I was not implying "worse living conditions."

I think it's a fair generalization that the poor today are more psychologically distressed about it than the poor a century ago were, and I'm asking why.
 
Last edited:
I also just ate stake for lunch.

!!! Yikes. Stake?

Wooden-Stake.jpg


;)

(I’m joining the army because I don’t want to continue to be a moocher)

That is one of the employers of last resort, for a lot of folks, and has been in virtually every society for millennia. So much money is spent there, they can find something for us to do. Not really being sarcastic either.
 
The poor in the USA are so well off that they live the lives of the middle class in other countries. The poor are spoiled and have distain for those that have more than they do.
They simply don’t do what will get them out of poverty. If they have time to organize and demand someone remove them from poverty than they have the time to do it themselves.

From walking the streets in Washington DC, which to be Frank were quite horrific, I do not believe the poor are any better off in the USA. Infact I would say it is better to be poor in any other first world industrialised country than the USA.

Most people in poverty feel ashamed, the lack of human empathy shown for such people is disturbing to say the least.

I think it's one of those 'until it happens to you' sort of things for most people sadly.
(I was trying to find the interview where they were forced to eat rats but it's been pulled)


The first shall come last and the last shall come first
 
From walking the streets in Washington DC, which to be Frank were quite horrific, I do not believe the poor are any better off in the USA. Infact I would say it is better to be poor in any other first world industrialised country than the USA.

Most people in poverty feel ashamed, the lack of human empathy shown for such people is disturbing to say the least.

I think it's one of those 'until it happens to you' sort of things for most people sadly.
(I was trying to find the interview where they were forced to eat rats but it's been pulled)


The first shall come last and the last shall come first
Joe, the only American I've ever heard of who ate rat's have been in "survivor" reality shows. Idiocy of claims is not a very conducive argument. Today I heard that the top 2% have 90% of the country's wealth. Idiotic hyperbole is not a very convincing argument - then I suppose it is not so if you are trying to convince those who are not equally as idiotic.
 
Do you actually have any evidence of this? The poor a century ago didn't have cars,air conditioning, heating, refrigeration, food stamps, welfare, good public education, cellphones with government life line services,TVs, and many other things.People in other countries must be screaming that is not poor. Your idea of miserable must be different than ours

I would just like to say for the record that public schools in poor neighborhoods are absolutely terrible, and AC and your car are the first things to go when you're broke, so obviously you don't know much about being poor.

But secondly, you've just named a bunch of items that have nothing to do with quality of life.

What good does it do you to have some old TV if you can't afford to get a rotten tooth treated?

What good does it do to have welfare if you can't qualify for any one of dozens of bogus reasons (being single, for example)?

What good does it do you to have a cell phone if all the damn thing ever does is remind you that you don't have rent this month?
 
Exactly. The options in the poll are pretty laughable. Welfare? Welfare existed since Bismarck. Manufacturing and farming? Have anybody who chose those options ever worked in a factory or a farm? Cities? Cities have existed for millennias.
I think SAM's opinion is the most valid in this thread

Yeah, I have no idea where on earth these option came from.

Thanks. And you know, it's interesting, I was actually less materialistic when I was poor. I'm still not especially materialistic now, but when I was broke, the smallest things made my day a little better, and they weren't material.

I don't really think a lot of people understand the mindset of being poor.
 
Higher to the point of being unrealistic. Not everybody can fly off to the south of France for a film festival, ya know.

Is it unrealistic to expect to be able to get medical treatment? Or have access to a nutritious diet? Or be able to travel to and from work? Or obtain the education to get a decent job? Or have a home that you won't get evicted from? Are those unrealistically high expectations?
 
Is it unrealistic to expect to be able to get medical treatment? Or have access to a nutritious diet? Or be able to travel to and from work? Or obtain the education to get a decent job? Or have a home that you won't get evicted from? Are those unrealistically high expectations?
If any of them are to be paid for by someone else, then yes.
 
Is it unrealistic to expect to be able to get medical treatment? Or have access to a nutritious diet? Or be able to travel to and from work? Or obtain the education to get a decent job? Or have a home that you won't get evicted from? Are those unrealistically high expectations?
You probably noticed, at least subconsciously, that I didn't include anything even remotely similar to any of those subjects as my example. On purpose. My posts have to do with the advent of the media and information age, where perks of the wealthy are thrown in everybody's faces on a daily basis, hence many people long for... and possibly even expect is or should be within easy reach... when they are not. Key word: "easy". People sit around and get bombarded by a blitz of advertising for the trendy new cool product, and watch shows glorifying the trips that celebrities take, then sit back and contemplate why they're so lacking and thus conclude that they are unhappy.

People in 1912 probably weren't as "unhappy" in that regard because, even though stuff like that did still happen for the wealthy, the poor didn't have it blasted in their face on a daily basis.

To be honest, I'm not sure we're even on the same wavelength, but I hope that helped.
 
I would just like to say for the record that public schools in poor neighborhoods are absolutely terrible, and AC and your car are the first things to go when you're broke, so obviously you don't know much about being poor.

But secondly, you've just named a bunch of items that have nothing to do with quality of life.

What good does it do you to have some old TV if you can't afford to get a rotten tooth treated?

What good does it do to have welfare if you can't qualify for any one of dozens of bogus reasons (being single, for example)?

What good does it do you to have a cell phone if all the damn thing ever does is remind you that you don't have rent this month?

This is exactly the sort of attitude I'm asking about. Why is this so prevalent? "Yeah yeah, we have all these conveniences that people didn't have fifty years ago, but it doesn't matter, because I STILL HAVE PROBLEMS!!!" Of course you do. Living organisms always develop problems. What's with the helpless attitude?

I don't really think a lot of people understand the mindset of being poor.

That's right, we don't. That's why I'm asking this question. But I'm not asking "hey, what's it like to be poor? Tell me a sad story..." I'm asking why such intense psychological distress about being poor today (even though they have such better living conditions/standards today than the poor did a long time ago)?
 
Last edited:
Exactly. The options in the poll are pretty laughable. Welfare? Welfare existed since Bismarck.

That doesn't change anything about one of the possibilities of why the poor seem so psychologically tortured about their condition today possibly being the dynamics of our welfare programs in this country.

Manufacturing and farming? Have anybody who chose those options ever worked in a factory or a farm?

What does that have to do with anything?

Cities? Cities have existed for millennias.

That's a weak rebuttal.

1-s2.0-S0140988303000781-gr3.gif


The idea is not that "people suddenly live in cities now," the idea is that being poor and living in a city might be a more miserable existence than being poor and living out in the country.

Remember, this question is about why the poor seem so miserable/psychologically distressed. That option suggests that it's mainly the urban poor whose misery/distress is broadcasted as something we need to fix. It was just one of the options.
 
Last edited:
Are they more miserable, or do they think they are more miserable?
And placebo-wise, can thinking you are in misery make you in miserable?

Most Americans Believe Crime in U.S. Is Worsening
Americans think crime is worse, yet it's statistically better. I don't take too much stock in asking people such things. If they have something to gain from claiming one thing, that's going to drive choice more than objective fact will. Why would it not? Rule 101 in politics is you always say you have exaggerated needs, that way you can negotiate with them later...if you must!

Regardless of ones take on that, the moral hazard is a bitch.
 
I would just like to say for the record that public schools in poor neighborhoods are absolutely terrible,
In many places elementary school, middle school or high school those schools can cover multiple neighborhoods of different income levels.

and AC and your car are the first things to go when you're broke, so obviously you don't know much about being poor.

By American standards I did grow up poor in the the 80s and early 90s,so yes I know about being poor.

However even back then growing up poor by American standards we were not poor compared to poor people in other countries.

But secondly, you've just named a bunch of items that have nothing to do with quality of life.
Actual poor people do not have those things.

What good does it do you to have some old TV if you can't afford to get a rotten tooth treated?

Depends on the state you live in and whether or not you can find a charity to cover the costs of getting that tooth treated.

What good does it do to have welfare if you can't qualify for any one of dozens of bogus reasons (being single, for example)?

Depends on the state you live in.

What good does it do you to have a cell phone if all the damn thing ever does is remind you that you don't have rent this month?

If you qualify for government lifeline service you can pay around a buck a month for cell phone service and get a free cell phone.
 
No. It's posed this way to generate thought and discussion, not to prove a claim or opinion.

So in other words you lied just made up something to generate discussion.


Nor were they aware that they lacked these things, because these things did not exist. We're not pouting today that we don't all have our own personal robot that does all our chores for us, because they largely do not exist. Maybe this speaks to why (I'm presuming) the poor today are more miserable (psychologically, I mean) despite their increased standard of living, than they were a long time ago.


I am pretty the standards of living back then were pretty obvious between the poor and rich and the rich had luxuries that the poor did not have.

State of mind vs. standard of living. I'm taking about state of mind. A middle class person can be psychologically tortured about his/her normal life, and a person in poverty can be happy-go-lucky and at peace with his/her surroundings. When I said "miserable" I was not implying "worse living conditions."

I think it's a fair generalization that the poor today are more psychologically distressed about it than the poor a century ago were, and I'm asking why.

The state of mind is irrelevant to the definition of being financially poor. Nobody looks at Bernie Madoffs wife and says "Oh she is so poor".
 
So in other words you lied just made up something to generate discussion.

I didn't "lie." I did assert it, and admittedly without evidence, but so what? That's why I created a poll where people could disagree if they wanted. My intuition tells me that the statement I admittedly made up, without evidence, is nonetheless likely generally true.

I am pretty the standards of living back then were pretty obvious between the poor and rich and the rich had luxuries that the poor did not have.

No doubt. This thread is not about living standards though.

The state of mind is irrelevant to the definition of being financially poor.

But I'm not asking about the "definition of being financially poor," I'm asking specifically about the state of mind of the poor now compared to a long time ago. So the state-of-mind issue is PRECISELY relevant to this thread, whereas the "definition" of poor is what's irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Select all that apply.

I ask this with the underlying questions being, "What is it about poverty that we should be trying to resolve? Is it more important for those in poverty to organize and demand that their poverty be somehow eradicated...

...or is it more important for those in poverty to find ways to feel empowered, fulfilled, and independent, despite their limited means?

Expectations. It's all about expectations. If you've ever listened to those who grew up during the depression, you know some real poverty stories. My mom used to eat lard-and-bread sandwiches. They ate dandelion greens. They couldn't afford chickens because they didn't have any money to buy feed for them. Couldn't have pigs for the same reason. They had a cow because she could graze on the land, so they had milk and butter. They ate lots of fish they caught in the river . . . a 6-mile walk from home . . . the boys would stay overnight.

Mom had one dress. One. That was for Sundays. They had no car . . . walked everywhere. Did they know they were poor? That answer would be, "No, they didn't." That was life.

And now we have politicians telling us that we're poor . . . that the middle class is dwindling . . . that we're entitled to have the wealth spread around. And we pine.
 
Expectations. It's all about expectations. If you've ever listened to those who grew up during the depression, you know some real poverty stories. My mom used to eat lard-and-bread sandwiches. They ate dandelion greens. They couldn't afford chickens because they didn't have any money to buy feed for them. Couldn't have pigs for the same reason. They had a cow because she could graze on the land, so they had milk and butter. They ate lots of fish they caught in the river . . . a 6-mile walk from home . . . the boys would stay overnight.

Mom had one dress. One. That was for Sundays. They had no car . . . walked everywhere. Did they know they were poor? That answer would be, "No, they didn't." That was life.

And now we have politicians telling us that we're poor . . . that the middle class is dwindling . . . that we're entitled to have the wealth spread around. And we pine.
If I could like this 1000 times, I would.

My only quibble, and it is very minor, would that they knew they were poor, but still they knew it was life. They just did what they had to do. And your point about the government (and media) telling us we're poor is something I have been thinking about for awhile now, but haven't been able to articulate.
 
Seems to me that individuals who would actually make this claim wouldn't have an inkling as to what an impoverished lifestyle actually entailed a century ago, or failed to listen to their grand and great grandparents depression era tales around the dinner table. True misery, the likes of which modern day America will hopefully never witness.
 
A century ago people understood how to live within their means and enjoy the finer things in life like family, friends, and comradery. That was their reality that we all will have to learn to do as well...live within our means.
 
From walking the streets in Washington DC, which to be Frank were quite horrific, I do not believe the poor are any better off in the USA. Infact I would say it is better to be poor in any other first world industrialised country than the USA.

Most people in poverty feel ashamed, the lack of human empathy shown for such people is disturbing to say the least.

I think it's one of those 'until it happens to you' sort of things for most people sadly.
(I was trying to find the interview where they were forced to eat rats but it's been pulled)


The first shall come last and the last shall come first
Being poor and being dirt poor (for lack of a better term) are two different things, I have been both.

Right now I am poor; I must tell you that it’s pretty nice. I have EBT so I eat well. I get government assistance that pays for my house, cable/internet, and I bought a new computer with my tax returns. I haven’t worked in over a year.

Being dirt poor is a mental condition. During my twenties I decided to live out of a van for three years, I thought it would be “cool”. It was cool. I had no bills and the freedom to go where ever I wanted. As far as eating goes, I found ways to get by. I earned what money I could, and frankly I drank most of it away. When I met others in similar dirt poorness I found that there is a certain laziness to the life style. They would always moan about it not being fair that they live like this, but they would never do anything about it. So; like me they chose to be dirt poor.

When I decided to end my time being dirt poor, it ended. I got a job and an apartment. I later married and started a small café’ with my wife. The bad economy hit and killed our café’. I have not been able to find a job for over a year. I have decided I will not live like a moocher so I enlisted in the Army.

In America; Poverty is a choice.
 
This is exactly the sort of attitude I'm asking about. Why is this so prevalent? "Yeah yeah, we have all these conveniences that people didn't have fifty years ago, but it doesn't matter, because I STILL HAVE PROBLEMS!!!" Of course you do. Living organisms always develop problems. What's with the helpless attitude?

I'm simply explaining that having items does not equate having a good standard of living. They're just items. If you're still broke, starving, or can't afford to keep them working, what's it matter what items you have?

It's not about hopelessness. It's about dispelling this persistent myth that having a TV equals having a good life. Most low-end apartments these days come with TV's. You can't sell them because they belong to the landlord. Even if you could, they aren't worth more than 10 bucks. And they probably don't work, because a low-end landlord probably didn't get the TV upgraded a few years ago.

You can cross-apply this to virtually any object that you'd like to equate with having a good life. It's a ridiculous fallacy.

Dying old money families have entire storage units full of fancy items, but they're still broke and can't afford their rent, and nothing they own is actually worth anything.

That's right, we don't. That's why I'm asking this question. But I'm not asking "hey, what's it like to be poor? Tell me a sad story..." I'm asking why such intense psychological distress about being poor today (even though they have such better living conditions/standards today than the poor did a long time ago)?

I don't think it's worse than it was long ago. In some ways I think it's probably better. And I don't think the poor feel worse than they did in years gone by.

As a matter of fact, I think some of the poor are happier in some ways. Some have better and less judgmental communities than well-to-do people. It's true that surrounding that community framework is a lot of danger, but that makes it all the tighter. It also depends on what sort of poor culture you're in; some are better than others in that respect.

I don't think this necessarily makes their lives better so much as it helps them deal with how much their lives suck, and it refocuses their minds to other things they can attain without money.

But being poor is stressful. Being hungry and broke and feeling like you're getting more and more buried each day is stressful. The condition itself is the cause of the distress.
 
A century ago people understood how to live within their means and enjoy the finer things in life like family, friends, and comradery. That was their reality that we all will have to learn to do as well...live within our means.
A century ago, lifestyles of the rich and famous were something you read about in fairy tale books. We depended upon our family, friends and neighbours whereas to day, we depend on the state. Today, ANY no-brain can hit it big playing stick and ball games, becoming a rapper, dealing drugs or if they have no conscience or decency at all, a Wall Street broker. The "stuff" of wealth is put on those free TV screens 24x7 in every slumlord appartment, so we find that to be the new normal and feel so horribly hard done by when we can't have all of that too.

There is NO reason for anyone to starve in this day and age on this continent, or even go without a decent education, housing and clothing. Lack of THOSE were realities a century ago - and much moreso during the '30s.
 
Plenty of money is being spent on education.

You're right. But spending money on education isn't the same as actually giving people a quality education. Visit an inner-city public school some time...many of them are dropout factories, and it's virtually impossible for students to get an education there.
 
Back
Top Bottom