|
—READ ALL COMMENTS ON THIS POST BY CLICKING HERELOUISA: Hey Suzie, sorry you feel frustrated seeing all these GoFundMe posts. I agree that a lot of these links are coming in. When I look through different zip codes on this app, I see a lot there too. I think a lot of us are having a hard time financially. Suzie, also, I wonder, what would you define a neighbor as? I notice as neighbors on the app, when we join, we don’t have to meet any income requirements. Would the future of the internet be in creating, as you say, a welcoming space, involve being surrounded by people who have the same income as you? Could it entail inputting and verifying member’s incomes to ensure that no one would need to ask for help financially? Is that something we want to see moving forward? Heavy moderation of access? Can you envision Nextdoor as an app where anyone making below $60,000 in their annual salary is not allowed to join? I read that anyone making less than 33 dollars an hour as a single person with no kids isn’t making a livable wage1; should we go off the parameters listed there? Is that the space you’re asking to create on the app? SUZIE: Woah, woah. Limiting people’s access to online apps by income isn’t fair. People who ask for money are going to ask for money regardless of the amount of money they make. People’s access to apps or spaces shouldn’t be limited by what their incomes are. I think we have enough of that in real life, poverty is often hidden away from the eyes of society2. I see how Eric Adams has criminalized homelessness3, there’s no debating that someone who is experiencing homelessness is in poverty. I also see how subway train lines are built with urban planning, and how there’s a theory that impoverished people are pushed away to the edges of the boroughs, only ever being close enough to commute to more wealthy areas to work. So, we can’t limit access to spaces by income. Who are we to define what the poverty level is without considering what bills and debts someone has? It’s a matter of people asking for money that I take issue with. I make $55K and I’m not poor. I’m not in “poverty”. I admit, I’m not even sure how to define what poverty is? I think if I needed the medicine my friend needed or I wanted to take a vacation, I couldn’t afford to. Is a lack of access to luxury what makes someone poor? I don’t know. I can pay all my bills and still have enough to live comfortably but I make less than $25 an hour, according to that link, I’m not making a livable wage. Meanwhile, my friend makes $99K a year, and most of their money goes into their medicine. They couldn’t afford their car payments, so they sold me their car, and while I’m living paycheck to paycheck, I’m doing okay. Sometimes my friend can’t even afford their groceries, so wouldn’t that mean they’re in poverty – even if they make more than me? If I’m want for nothing but they have to choose between what they need more and what they have to push off for their next paycheck, I think numbers aren’t a good measure of poverty. I’m lower middle class. I don’t know what class my friend is in. My mother uses this app too and she makes almost half the money I do with her Social Security Benefits and her part-time job combined; she has a right to use this app. She doesn’t ask for help from anyone either. To answer your question though, a neighbor is someone who lives next to where I live. We share a zip code. I would say it’s also someone who works hard like I do. Anyone who shares my values is part of my community, also my neighbor. And… in case you’re wondering, part of sharing my values would include someone who doesn’t ask other people for money, online or off. LOUISA: Understandable points but if we think about sharing a zip code, wouldn’t the neighborhood cats looking for food be our neighbors? Wouldn’t the people sleeping outside of the Dunkins on King’s Highway also be our neighbors? Wouldn’t a pleasant, cookie-baking secret cannibal living somewhere in our midst be a neighbor even if we (hopefully) don’t share those Lectorian4 values? If the homeless person hid that they were homeless and the very nice cannibal hid that they ate people, which one would you be more disgusted with when the truth was revealed? SUZY: I would be angrier with the cannibal. As long as the homeless person doesn’t approach me for money, I wouldn’t have any negative feelings towards them. I would even dare to say that the crime of cannibalism is almost the same as soliciting for money, which in cases of extreme poverty or con artists, I will refer to as “panhandling”. All include hunger for things only others can provide. They can’t sustain themselves in the absence of others. LOUISA: Then what of corporations that rely solely on the money of consumers, the help of the government to soften their risks5, and the labor of others? Most businesses we patronize don’t have their CEOs making coffee or in the shops, and most of the time they don’t even provide the start-up costs upfront. Starbucks puts online ads all over our app feed begging us to spend money. Aren’t they also soliciting us, and aren’t they also our neighbors? How about non-profits that provide services we don’t utilize in our zip codes? Food pantries? What if the services they provide don’t align with our values but are funded by our tax money and donations, and still post ads on Nextdoor asking for money and volunteers? Why do we give people who work in nonprofits badges of honor and why do people feel good about donating their money to them, if ideally, the money would go to the same place? Someone who you say is a “con artist” will still find a way to con a nonprofit, if the need is strong enough. Why do we condemn donating directly to people in need who ask? Do we want to avoid seeing their shame or do we want to avoid feeling ours? Why are these two scenarios different? Why do people in need require institutions to confirm their suffering and lack of resources? Why do we need a bureaucracy to look at their income on paper to then decide if they’re in need? And like your friend who can’t afford food sometimes, despite being what America considers not at or below the poverty line, could they post a GoFundMe in here without judgment? Especially if we both know government agencies will probably deny them resources and say they don’t meet the poverty line requirements.6 SUZY: I wouldn’t judge my friend because I know their experience is real and they would be asking for help when they didn’t have any other options. I trust a lot of nonprofits because I know their money goes to helping people. They vet extensively, even if people say they fail sometimes. I don’t know how the two are different, maybe it’s easier to trust an institution than it is to trust someone who might just use the money to buy beer or drugs. LOUISA: What are your thoughts on people who smoke cannabis for chronic pain management? Arthritis, cancer? Does pain management make a life of suffering bearable?7 What would you say if all forms of pain management for people with a chronic illness were banned? If smoking cannabis for pain management was deemed immoral and people could only use a highly expensive synthetic drugs to manage the pain, and the cost was five hundred dollars a pill for something that needed to be taken twice a day. SUZY: I think it’s valid. I see the connection you’re trying to make, and I want to assert that the difference is that cancer or chronic illness isn’t a choice. I would say that the price is absurd and seeks to punish people for something out of their control. I can’t imagine any life is worth living if twisted so violently by endless suffering, especially if there were options to alleviate even a little bit of the pain. LOUISA: But you would say that poverty is worth being punished for? And anyone who might need to smoke or drink or use anything to alleviate the pain should be condemned for not facing their suffering without a buffer? SUZIE: At its most abject and absolute8 form, yes. And if the substances are keeping the person from rejoining society again, then I would still condemn them for it. LOUISA: I know people who smoke cannabis all the time and drink every weekend, and their bills and employment and positions in society are not in jeopardy. Why do we typically see substance use as provocative, decadent, and exciting in media when used by the wealthy, why is it called recreational when used by affluent people, but assumed only to be based in addiction or shameful when used by people in poverty when the result is the same, increasing their quality of life through access to pleasure; anesthetizing or amplification9. SUZIE: In some way I can see that it wouldn’t cure their illness, if poverty is an illness? But it would make life manageable enough to live through. It treats a symptom, not the illness. Not everyone in poverty is miserable enough to require pain management, are they? I guess neither of us can really answer that right now. LOUISA: Yeah, I think, also, unless you had rent money for someone for a year, or guaranteed housing or employment, nothing you give would be a cure, even then, what happens the year after the next? Doesn’t it all feel more systemic? Less out of our control? So why do we shame people for being poor if it isn’t in their control? Why are we afraid of our money going somewhere that isn’t directly related to raising them over the poverty line? Isn’t shame meant to be reserved for things people do to others that is cruel? A punishment for negligence? I see you have a dog in your profile picture. If it is yours and it used the bathroom on your pillow, would you shame the dog for it or ignore it? SUZY: If Potato peed on my pillow, I would be upset! She knows better! LOUISA: Gently, if I may? By that standard, does your friend facing poverty because they have to pay for their meds instead of buying groceries know better than to be sick? Or have needs they can’t afford? SUZY: No, because it isn’t their fault. What they’re going through is nothing to feel ashamed of. LOUISA: I would say it’s the same for people without a home or facing poverty too. Do you think our wages are livable and housing costs are fair? Shouldn’t the shame be ours? Not theirs? If you can’t give money, could you hold the grief in an act of solidarity? SUZY: I can see what you’re saying but that doesn’t make me think that someone else’s problem should be mine. Grief and solidarity don’t feed a hungry person. LOUISA: No but maybe they’re fruits of change, bitter as they are, perhaps if enough have a taste, they would start to question the tree as the sole source of nourishment. REGGIE: Hello, I was lurking and reading everyone’s comments and I think I can go either way with all of this. If I’m reading everyone’s comments correctly, I have a hot take for you both, if I may. I think we’re all in poverty. You compared poverty to an illness, but I want to suggest that poverty is more an inevitability, the way death is, rather than something that can be avoided. Especially considering the way the system is built. Suzie, you mentioned that your friend couldn’t afford their car payments, so you bought it. If your friend didn’t have their illness, would they be facing poverty or difficulties? You said your mom was on social security and with the money she worked for, she still can’t fully retire; she had to ask for help from someone for money, right? Apply to the Government for financial help; isn’t that still asking a stranger for money? Using strangers' tax money to live? You mentioned you don’t have extra money to give, that you work hard and consider yourself Lower Middle Class, but does the middle class exist? I was thinking of something I read by Engles10 a long time ago and he said there are only two classes, the working class who puts all their labor into making money, and the wealthy class that owns the means of production and capital. The wealthy are going to do their best to ensure they make money in an efficient way, no? Without any moral judgment, making money in an efficient way is always going to involve maximizing profit. That’s math. You want more apples; you’re going to take more from an apple tree. That increases what you have but leaves a tree barren until it can produce more, or until it stops producing fruits altogether. That addition and subtraction comes at the expense of lower wages, or longer hours, bargaining, or getting cheaper material which might exploit someone in its pursuit of being “the lowest cost”. In this situation, maybe two people are competing as vendors for a business owner, and one decides to sell their goods way below value to ensure they get chosen as a vendor or service provider since a little money is better than none. Then the owner always expects that price until he crushes his vendor into either poverty or a deficit or the vendor has to treat their own vendors the same way to keep up with competitive demand, or until the person on the lowest end of the bartering is subjected to making the least. Capitalism thrives on competition. You, your mom, your friend, even if you all have wildly different income levels, you’re all in poverty. Most Americans will be in poverty. If there’s no difference between someone making almost three figures, someone on public assistance, and you, then what does it matter what class title any of you hold? Lower Middle Class, Lower Class, Middle Upper Class, poverty is inevitable for everyone in Capitalism. All it takes is one tragedy and we might need to juggle which necessity we can afford today. SUZIE: Reggie, I can't say if I know if the middle class does exist but by that standard, even the Wealthiest are in poverty. Wouldn’t even the richest person alive eventually have a limit to their money? Wouldn’t something, albeit a catastrophic “something”, happen that would require the spending of all their money, leaving them with nothing? REGGIE: Yes, please that’s how Capitalism is built around poverty and wealth, and why it’s inevitable. Why the wealthy guard and seek to maximize their profits so aggressively. There are no real safeguards in place, more exist for the wealthy should their money be depleted so aggressively11 but anything could happen. I think insurance writers for policies call freak accidents and extreme tragedies they can’t account for as: “acts of god”, so if any act of god can separate a wealthy person from the luxury they prefer to keep, is it on purpose? Did they choose their inevitable poverty? LOUISA: I can see how a wealthy person would want to increase their wealth, it’s logical to do so. Could wealth mean access to multiple utilities and pleasures and ways to increase quality of life? Wouldn’t it also be human nature for most people to want to maximize their comfort and quality of life? Aren’t people motivated by wanting experiences of awe or pleasure or wonder? Don’t we do that in small ways too? With how we choose what pens feel right in our hands, how we deliberate on what fruit at a supermarket yields the ripest fruit, how our bedrooms look if only for our eyes, or how the clothes we wear fit us? So why would someone choose to be in absolute or relative poverty to suffer discomfort and a lack of choices, if not due to an inability to find an escape? Because they’re lazy? Doesn’t laziness imply staying comfortable? Wouldn’t even a comfortable and well-fed hamster run for an open cage door? Doesn’t the idea of open pastures, wonder, and independence motivate even the hamster receiving handouts to try for a better situation? Lest the door be shut, and their access denied despite their best efforts? If a person in poverty is uncomfortable by their increasing isolation from what joys and experiences society can offer them and offers others who have more capital, wouldn’t they try to reach for it? Why would someone choose poverty? SUZIE: Nuns, monks. Religious people called into service. They choose poverty. As a literal act of god; technically. REGGIE: True but in this case, is this just an act of accumulating spiritual capital for an afterlife of wealth? SUZIE:Oooh, now that I can’t say. LOUISA: I think it’s safe to maybe based on this conversation, we can consider the idea that we’re all different degrees away from absolute poverty. We're all experiecing relative forms of it. And the measure of poverty should start at where the Wealthy have access, instead of starting from where those in poverty are lacking. If the numbers fail us, as we might suspect through our conversation on this forum, can we say poverty is a measure of access and lack of? Could we determine our levels of poverty by making a list of things the Wealthiest people in the world enjoy, have access to, and take true pleasure in? Then can we look at those things, be it abstract constructs like never worrying about not being to afford medicine or a stem cell treatment with no insurance coverage because the treatment is not fully FDA approved, to maybe being able to afford fresh produce with every meal or clean drinking water. How would a list like that change our views of poverty and wealth? What if the wealthy made a list of things they had access to and didn’t find affected their quality of life? Also, one thing I read recently: “If the borough of Manhattan were a country, the income gap between the richest twenty percent and the poorest twenty percent would be on par with countries like Sierra Leone, Namibia, and Lesotho.” - The New Yorker, Inequality and New York’s Subway.12 SUZIE: The only issue I take with a list is that it implies that we all want the same things, regardless of culture. It takes a universal stance on human nature. There are all things that we need to live but like our conversation on values, I don’t think our values should be subject to a hierarchy of universal needs, it won’t fit everyone, and it’ll separate people in poverty further away from getting their needs met. LOUISA: So does that mean that if someone, assuming the amount asked for was modest and the content was verifiable, if one GoFundMe asked for fresh produce and the other, a new laptop, neither of which are urgent requests but still needed - both because their income doesn’t allow the extra spending, would their posts elicit the same emotion from you? SUZIE: Hmmm. Maybe now that I’ve considered what poverty could look like in relation to need...and while it doesn’t change my mind that some people might be trying to take advantage, I think considering that we’re all struggling in this system makes me think a little more about the big picture of what we’re all experiencing because of our economic system.  —READ ALL FOOTNOTES BY CLICKING HERE1 - Living Wage Calculation for New York County, New York, Last Updated February 14, 2024: https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/360612 - Blackboard Discussion Board with peers: "Being Poor in Ancient Greece"; Module 4, Question 2 3 - Eric Adams's New Homeless Policy: More Policing, October 2022: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/eric-adams-cops-not-care-nov# 4 - "Lectorian" refers to pop culture horror figure, Hannibal Lector. Although known to be polite and repelled by rudeness and cruelty, we will focus more on his bad behavior of eating people and agree that it's unethical and of poor values. 5 - In direct reference to "Dependants of State", exploring how corporations "enjoy legal protection as if they are indivduals, and allows hedge managers to pay less taxes than their office cleaners." Pg 2, Amira Srinivasan 6 - Table 1. The Cumulative Percent of Americans Experiencing Poverty Across Adulthood; Confronting Poverty, Fact 1, https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/most-americans-will-experience-poverty/ 7 - (Content Warning, Youtube link includes Explicit Language and Content ) This references the ideas found in the song, "If I coud Teach the World" by Bone thugs N Harmony. It explores the answer to the question: "Why do I get high?" Bryon Anthony McCane II, otherwise known as "Bizzy Bone" is an American rapper from the popular Ohio based group Bone Thugs N Harmony. In this song, the men contemplate what lessons they would teach their community and the world, and when the question comes up as to why they choose to smoke so often, Bizzy Bone states, "I'm holding on to my soul." As some know, McCane experienced fame long before his musical group did, as a young victim of human trafficing with an episode urging others to be on the look out for his whereabouts as a child on America's Most Wanted. It is safe to presume that the act of smoking for McCane is an act of pain management, compounded with the complexities of being impoverished and being a Black man in America. https://youtu.be/oU6wcbEZ4_A?si=jrn8-pprNLncn4bY 8 - Poor, Relatively Speaking, Anartya Sen 9 - Poor, Relatively Speaking, Anartya Sen; Page 160 on Commidity, Characteristic, and Utility influcing the quality of one's life. 10 - Two folded, perhaps triple, reference to Srinivasan quoting John Steinbeck "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as exploited proletariat but embarassed millionaries." Though Fredrich Engles' The Conditions of the Working Class, Page 70, "True, it is only indivduals who starve, but what security has the working man that it may not be his turn tomorrow? Who assures him employment, who vouches for it that, for any reason or no reason his lord and master discharges him tomorrow?" 11 - Explored further in Amia Srinivasan's New York Times piece, "Dependants of State". 12 - Idea of the Week: Inequality and New York’s Subway, The New Yorker, April 15, 2013: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/idea-of-the-week-inequality-and-new-yorks-subway |