You’re not poor, you’re broke!

*Eloathan, I do not think anybody on this thread has even suggested that What I think is downright nasty is people implying that many of the people who are poor are not really poor but unable to prioritise.

Everyone has made it absolutely clear that what we are talking about is people with adequate incomes, sometimes, more than adequate incomes, who have to have every gadget and the best and most expensive, and then complain of being broke, short of money and unable to pay their bills.

Nobody has accused those truly in poverty of such behaviour, indeed the whole point of this thread as Anja has pointed out several times is that these feckless spendthrifts insult the truly poor by suggesting that they(the spendthrifts) are broke and poor.

Perhaps you should go back and read carefully what people have actually put in their posts.

Well, they were not golden ages notanan - perhaps you are younger than most of us and were the child who did not realise how parents had to scrimp or go without themselves to provide for their children - my parents did that and so did we for our children.

I am not younger than you all for a start, some maybe but I am well within GN average, just because I bother to understand young people doesnt make me one of them y'know.

I am OLD enough to remember that people were human in the past. Some were resourceful, some were wasteful. Some children went to school well fed and clothed while their parents sobbed about how to pay the bills and I also remember children who went without necessities behind closed doors so that appearances could be kept up. I remember bill money being drank, or gambled in some houses. No IT WAS NOT A GOLDEN AGE. Some had their priorities right, others did not. Same as today!

I'd be interested to know what paper it was in and why that paper chose to focus on a family that, I believe, is unrepresentative of those that feel they are "poor". It is, in my opinion, a distortion of reality that will lead some people to think that the issue of poverty is over-stated, which I don't believe it is.

As I said: when would you rather be a publican? Then or now?

I remember my poorest friend (and they WERE poor) whose mother always gave the most to collections and jumbles etc.. even though she definitely could not spare it, in an effort to look "respectable".

I remember pubs being full on payday even though times were tough.

Later on I remember the fad of renting electrical items if you couldnt afford them, which VERY quickly worked out more expensive than buying the item, and unlike credit agreements you nevet owned it. Our biggest electrical store in my home town did most of its business this way!

I remember the percieved impprtance of having good "Sunday" clothes even if your day to day clothes were threadbare.

No. I am not too young to remember that people as a whole were no more "prudent" than they are now. Some individuals were/are. Some aren't/weren't.

I remember when all our local shops used to take deposits then weekly payments. Particularly popular for prams etc. I also remember people losing their deposits because they hadnt thought through whether they would be able to pay the balance.

Far from it being the norm, I remember hand me downs often being seen as shameful. I remember my mother altering a dress I got from an older family friend so that people wouldnt recognise it as being X's old party dresss (despite my protests because I loved that dress the way it was)

It's difficult to define what 'poor' means. although I believe there's some kind of definition based on income and family size.
When my 2 youngest were babies, in the '60s, We once had our electricity cut off for not paying the bill. We had no telephone, fridge or washing machine. Sometimes I used to search for coins under the sofa cushions to buy some eggs for tea..
But my husband had a job and we had our own house so I didn't think we were poor.

Thank goodness some people have understood my point Monica. I was beginning to wonder exactly what I had written in my OP so had to re-read it.

This family enjoy a six-figure income.

just because I bother to understand young people doesnt make me one of them y'know.
Young people are not one homogenous mass - they differ as much as any other generation.

We do have friends like that Anja - the term they would use is 'really hard up' - 'wouldn't get out of bed for less than £100,000' but then plead poverty.
I should say, we did have friends like that.

Eloethan This family were not featured in the newspaper article. What OP said was: Reading an article in today’s paper resonated _ after listening to a family member yesterday rambling on about being ‘poor’._ The underlining is mine.

Sorry to repeat it, but Perhaps you should go back and read carefully what people have actually put in their posts.

Oh, and OP put quotes around the 'poor' as well, which means that they are not poor.

Young people are not one homogenous mass - they differ as much as any other generation.

As I said upthread, some people are good at budgeting, some are not. Now and in the past.

What is shared are the outside influences, people (in every generation) vary in how they deal with those outside influences.

I understand that my challenges starting my adult life are not the same ad young peoples challenges today.

So how I did things dont apply. You cant save in the same way. You cant progress in the same way. Times change. Some challenges go away and get replaced by others.

What doesnt change is the variation within a group of people.

Notanan2, sorry for the delay, this family do choose to move every six months for no reason other than they are restless, their poor children are dragged in and out of schools and never have a chance to settle. It's a crazy situation which I won't go into, but every move costs another couple of thousand pounds that they don't have.

That's crazy! (And not normal!)

It's just my opinion but to me, poverty is one thing and not being able to manage your money successfully is quite another. (although sometimes one genuinely leads to the other)

The couple Anja is talking about, have many things in their lives that some regard as luxuries and are certainly not necessities: meals out, children's hobbies (although that's a moot point these days) and yet they want more to do more.

Poverty is when your total income doesn't allow you to do more than pay for rent, food and occasionally clothes, with nothing left for doctor's or dentist bills and other similar "luxuries". That's in our developed world anyway.

I believe Anja was saying that if they managed their money more judiciously, they would not need to cry the poor tale and feel they need more and more dosh.

In a huge swathe of this earthly community, poverty is watching your child die from starvation because even a bowl of rice a day is beyond your means.

"If you disagree, tell me this: when would you rather have been a publican?

I don't think it's ever been a good time to be a tax collector
Luke 18:9-14

I am sure Anja will come back and make all things clear, she has tried to do it so often without success, although I do not quite understand why (she hasn't been successful in her attempts) The initial post was very clear to me.

Essentially she is saying, I think, that when there are so many people living in real poverty, using food banks, struggling to pay rent, she finds it irritating when people she knows, who have a large income which they spend on luxuries like the latest car, technology, etc. then complain that they are really struggling to manage to buy the basics of life: food, utility bills etc. She is assuming we all understand what poverty means etc etc, but her thread is about those who spend thousands of pounds on status symbols and then cannot afford the basics and then (erroneously) consider themselves struggling.

Having read the post, I think she expected people to react, broadly, in one of two ways either we can agree with her that people like that are really irritating, that they have no idea what true poverty is and need educating, give examples of such families we know etc etc

Or

We can defend them, say about the pressure on children to have all the gadgets, how families need big 4 x 4s because they are safer (they aren't) that they need space for the children and large status dog, that the big house and garden are needed because the dog is so big etc etc.

What seems irrelevant is long screeds on poverty. There seems to be quite a large group of posters on GN who feel that we should not let any thread, no matter what the subject, go by without having a least half a dozen posts on it on those who live in poverty. There is a thread about bluebells running at the moment, I haven't looked at it recently but I am sure there is a post on it reminding us that many people in society are so poor that they cannot afford to buy bluebells and have no garden to plant them in, only an empty can that had once contained food from the Food Bank.

I am well aware that there are many people in this country who are poor and need help but I think posters who are constantly waving the poverty flag around their heads and value signalling their compassion and care are treating those who struggle in poverty with disrespect and using them for their own aggrandisment. There are threads where discussions about poverty are real and heartfelt and discussed with respect. I am afraid many of the poverty stories scattered randomly around other threads remind me of the Monty Python sketch where a group of men struggle to compete in proving they had risen to wealth from the poorest background.

Now I will put my tin hat on and duck.

Monica thank you for that. Your first appraisal was, of course, the point I was trying to make. However, I’m not going to come back and labour the point and I feel you will understand why.

People today seem to think they are entitled to the luxuries in life, like the top of the range car, phone, holiday, etc. instead of looking at these as a privilege.

Some of course, just want others to think they are wealthy when they aren't, nothing paid for which means it could be lost/taken away at any moment.

I wish more would live within their means rather than teaching their children that they can have EVERYTHING they WANT.

Anja - my mother used to describe people like the ones you describe as "fur coat and no knickers".

notanan2 my parents were publicans in the 60-70's. People would often hand over items of jewellery in exchange for a drink. On payday they would come in and retrieve their possessions.

There was one couple whose baby spent more time outside our pub which was on a busy main road in London, from early lunch time until dark, this went on until child could get out of the pram itself.

Poverty really did mean poverty then, I was told not to talk about our holidays or what we had at home, or our frequent days out as it could be interpreted as "boasting".

Some things stay with you for life, and I have always been careful with money, even when I had nothing if I could save 5 or 10 shillings I would find a way to do so.

What makes a person a " must have ?"