Sunshine Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 (edited) 20 minutes ago, NauticalSoup said: She's not in poverty because she's married to someone who makes more than her whose income she has access to, right? Sounds like she's making a poverty wage to me, if that's all that's giving her access to those luxuries. As has already been stated, you're buying into some pretty nasty classist propaganda if you think being categorized as earning a 'poverty wage' is a personal attack This just seems like tedious semantic quibbling when you seemingly already agree that these are very poor wages by any name It therefore isn't a poverty wage then is it?! You are generalising and being prejudice through the use of the term. By doing so, you are being discriminatory by classifying people by how much they earn; stating what they can and cannot afford. Individual circumstances which wage is one of determine if someone is in poverty. It is therefore wrong and insulting for the term to be used. This is particularly the case with your use to categorise people and use the term to define without evidence what those people can and can't do. To be clear, the wage does not determine whether someone is in poverty. A person or family can be on an average household income but still be in poverty. They have numerous kids, massive debts, a mortgage they cannot afford, a partner may be unemployed etc. Alternatively they could be retired with a big pension, a young person living with their parents, fully paid off a house etc. where the salary is highly disposable. It is individual circumstances which wage can be one of that determines poverty. You categorising people and prejudging them by income is ignorant. Edited July 27, 2021 by Sunshine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golub87 Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 People being insulted at the fact that they are underpaid just shows how deep have we sunk in the cultural hegemony of liberalism. In liberal worldview being poor is a sin, therefore suggesting that someone is poor is akin to accusing them of being a sinner. People get offended at the suggestion that they are not getting their fair cut because the blessed invisible hand gives out exactly as much as everyone deserves, no more and no less. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarouan Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 4 minutes ago, Hashut said: Some people need to get a grip. If you’re not earning enough for the work that you do, it’s your boss that’s insulting you, not people on the internet pointing out that wages are low. There is a reason why nowadays demeaning nicknames are called for what they are. It's because they're meant to be demeaning. It's never meant to be used for yourself, always something you never considered to be worthy of your attention. Saying "people need to get a grip" shows the same thing than using them yourself : a lack of empathy to understand why people aren't comfortable with them... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nos Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 2 hours ago, RexHavoc said: I wonder if part of it is not wanting to risk the dream that 'you too could be part of the badly paid work force, if you just paint hard enough and love the company even harder'. £20k is still well above what an awful lot of people earn in the UK though, especially when doing something you love. I'm not without sympathy, but the difference between that and actual minimum wage staff who are doing hard graft full time for £12k is shocking. Both are dreadful wages for sure, but that is how corporations get away with it- there will always be someone worse off that will do the job for less than we'd expect. Nobody working full time over the age of 22 can be paid less than 16.3K, that's minimum wage at 37.5 hours a week. Average UK Full Time Salary is 31k. So 11K more than GW paid a key designer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarouan Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Golub87 said: People being insulted at the fact that they are underpaid just shows how deep have we sunk in the cultural hegemony of liberalism. In liberal worldview being poor is a sin, therefore suggesting that someone is poor is akin to accusing them of being a sinner. People get offended at the suggestion that they are not getting their fair cut because the blessed invisible hand gives out exactly as much as everyone deserves, no more and no less. Not a sin, but a stigma. It also implies a confession of social failure. Also...we really don't need to call them that way to keep advancing the debate here...James never use the terms "poverty wages" in his tweets as well...neither Sophie... Edited July 27, 2021 by Sarouan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nos Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 1 hour ago, Sunshine said: Whilst I also agree with the sentiments you are trying to portray, my wife earns less than the national living wage and I find your post dictating what we can afford not only highly inaccurate but offensive. We own a house, car, have 2 kids, can afford holidays to Asia each year, and can afford numerous hobbies for both ourselves and our kids. Whilst this is because I earn a comfortable salary myself, it shows that just because my wife is on a salary below the national living wage, she is not in poverty. The phrase poverty wage is therefore not only an inaccurate phrase but is demeaning as through its use you are categorising people. I mean...you've literally said yourself that you can afford all the things you do because of *an entirely separate and by your own admission, comfortable salary*. Take away your salary, would you be able to pay for all those things? No, you wouldn't. Not remotely. Not even close. That *is* a fact. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golub87 Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 Just now, Sarouan said: Not a sin, but a stigma. It also implies a confession of social failure. Also...we really don't need to call them that way to keep advancing the debate here...James never use the terms "poverty wages" in his tweets as well...neither Sophie... Sigma arises from the idea that something was done wrong. That an individual did something to deserve such a fate. In this case the idea that lack of funds is not a failing of an individual but by a system, goes directly against central tenets of liberal ideology - those that espouse free market, personal enterprise and meritocracy. That is unacceptable in any ideological framework, including the liberal one, therefore the afflicted must be a sinner. Now this in turn creates coping mechanisms. 99.9% of the population is poor. People don't like to think of themselves as the sinners, yet they are immersed in this liberal cultural hegemony. The solution is the myth of the so called "middle class". And most people react very defensively when you touch their coping mechanisms, especially if they are deeply ingrained cultural ones. Under capitalism, unless you can employ your capital to acquire more capital, you are poor. If you are forced to sell your labor to live, you are poor. Working class is poor. There exists a labor aristocracy, of course, a small number of specialists that can eke out a comfortable existence for themselves, but vast majority of us, including everyone here I guess, are poor. And that is not a failing to be ashamed of, but a reality that needs to be processed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 3 minutes ago, Nos said: I mean...you've literally said yourself that you can afford all the things you do because of *an entirely separate and by your own admission, comfortable salary*. Take away your salary, would you be able to pay for all those things? No, you wouldn't. Not remotely. Not even close. That *is* a fact. It depends on my circumstances? If we have fully paid off our house then yes? There is no such thing as poverty wages and it is a discriminatory term being used to prejudge people's circumstances? I am not quite sure why anyone would coin such a phrase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golub87 Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 Just now, Sunshine said: It depends on my circumstances? If we have fully paid off our house then yes? There is no such thing as poverty wages and it is a discriminatory term being used to prejudge people's circumstances? I am not quite sure why anyone would coin such a phrase. There absolutely is such a thing as a poverty wage. And it is not a discriminatory term, unless you consider poverty to be a personal failing of the afflicted individual. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArkanautDadmiral Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 4 minutes ago, Golub87 said: but vast majority of us, including everyone here I guess, are poor. So poor in fact that we all spend our disposable income on admittedly expensive plastic toys. Go figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarouan Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 1 minute ago, Nos said: I mean...you've literally said yourself that you can afford all the things you do because of *an entirely separate and by your own admission, comfortable salary*. Take away your salary, would you be able to pay for all those things? No, you wouldn't. Not remotely. Not even close. That *is* a fact. Sure, but it's also a fact James wasn't alone at that time, like Sunshine's wife. We actually don't know their full situation at that time, but he didn't sound like he was in desperate need as well. I also remember his first interview when he talked about his time as a designer from GW and how he got to create his own company...at that time, he also said one of the reasons was the sudden death of his colleague and realization that you have only one life and should enjoy it with your dreams as well. Money wasn't the only motivation why he left, to me...certainly one factor, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Golub87 said: There absolutely is such a thing as a poverty wage. And it is not a discriminatory term, unless you consider poverty to be a personal failing of the afflicted individual. As I have explained there is no such thing as poverty wage. Whilst wage can contribute to poverty and can also be the sole reason for poverty, there are also can be other contributing factors. By using the phrase 'poverty wages' you are generalising and categorising people who do not earn a certain amount as being in poverty when that is not the case across the board. Edited July 27, 2021 by Sunshine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golub87 Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 Just now, ArkanautDadmiral said: So poor in fact that we all spend our disposable income on admittedly expensive plastic toys. Go figure. Yes. Working class turns to consumerism in order to fill the gap that alienation from our own labor leaves in our psyche. It also makes us feel less poor. Our beloved capitalist overlords are more than happy to oblige and feed the addiction to various toys. Being rich does not mean being able to afford a new car or a new phone. Thinking like that just shows how removed we are from the actual material reality of being rich. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golub87 Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 Just now, Sunshine said: As I have explained there is no such thing as poverty wage. Whilst wage can contribute to poverty and also be the sole reason for poverty, there are also can be other contributing factors. By using the phrase 'poverty wages' you are generalising and categorising people who do not earn a certain amount as being in poverty when that is not the case across the board. No, poverty wage is exactly that - wage that is, on it's own, not enough to provide even a decent, so called middle class, living circumstance to an individual. It is an indictment of the system, not of the person. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarouan Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, ArkanautDadmiral said: So poor in fact that we all spend our disposable income on admittedly expensive plastic toys. Go figure. What bothers me is that some people use this term here to serve their own ideology / worldview simply to be more impactful. It's certainly more driving to say 99,99 % of the population lives in poverty to inspire rightful indignation rather than actual and factual statistics with a clear definition of when you are considered truly "poor" with your incomes not covering your expenses... Edited July 27, 2021 by Sarouan 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 1 minute ago, Golub87 said: Yes. Working class turns to consumerism in order to fill the gap that alienation from our own labor leaves in our psyche. It also makes us feel less poor. Our beloved capitalist overlords are more than happy to oblige and feed the addiction to various toys. Being rich does not mean being able to afford a new car or a new phone. Thinking like that just shows how removed we are from the actual material reality of being rich. It would be an extreme interesting topic to discuss what constitutes as rich and what would as poor! I don't think I would have the energy for it though 😆 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArkanautDadmiral Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 2 minutes ago, Golub87 said: Yes. Working class turns to consumerism in order to fill the gap that alienation from our own labor leaves in our psyche. It also makes us feel less poor. Our beloved capitalist overlords are more than happy to oblige and feed the addiction to various toys. Being rich does not mean being able to afford a new car or a new phone. Thinking like that just shows how removed we are from the actual material reality of being rich. Surely the empty bank account would make me feel more poor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golub87 Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 Just now, ArkanautDadmiral said: Surely the empty bank account would make me feel more poor? No, because you have acquired (what us, working class Joes consider to be) trappings of wealth. Being able to spend money on an impulse FEELS like you have more because if you did not, then you would not spend it like that right? Would I, as a rational individual, spend more than I can afford on a whim? Of course not, therefore the fact that I am spending it means that I am less poor. Human psyche is weird. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunshine Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 1 minute ago, Golub87 said: No, poverty wage is exactly that - wage that is, on it's own, not enough to provide even a decent, so called middle class, living circumstance to an individual. It is an indictment of the system, not of the person. But you can? I am going around in circles. If a family has paid off their house, they could live comfortably off of minimum wage let alone the living wage. If a person is single and house sharing, they could live comfortably. Poverty is not limited solely to wage and that is why poverty wages should not be used as a term as it is a term prejudging a person based solely on their income. The opposite end of the scale are people earning more than a 'poverty wage' but still finding themselves in poverty. I understand people's meaning behind the phrase, however, it is ill-conceived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golub87 Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 4 minutes ago, Sarouan said: What bothers me is that some people use this term here to serve their own ideology / worldview simply to be more impactful. It's certainly more driving to say 99,99 % of the population lives in poverty to inspire rightful indignation rather than actual and factual statistics with a clear definition of when you are considered truly "poor" with your incomes not covering your expenses... The definitions of what constitutes poverty are arbitrary and established by institutions that are vested in the system and the perpetuation of the liberal myth. I mean it is funny that you accuse someone of using the term to serve their own ideology and then do not call out liberals for doing the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArkanautDadmiral Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 Just now, Golub87 said: No, because you have acquired (what us, working class Joes consider to be) trappings of wealth. Being able to spend money on an impulse FEELS like you have more because if you did not, then you would not spend it like that right? Would I, as a rational individual, spend more than I can afford on a whim? Of course not, therefore the fact that I am spending it means that I am less poor. Human psyche is weird. But if I feel like I have all I want and all I need does that not make me rich? How much more material wealth are you saying I should have to ensure I’m not poor in reality anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarouan Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Golub87 said: The definitions of what constitutes poverty are arbitrary and established by institutions that are vested in the system and the perpetuation of the liberal myth. I mean it is funny that you accuse someone of using the term to serve their own ideology and then do not call out liberals for doing the same. Well, yeah, everything humans define is arbitrary and established by institutions...that's litterally how society can work on a common basis...if capitalism was someday thrown off by a revolution, the new system in place would put new ones as well for it to keep working... Besides...why would I call out liberals on that matter ? So far on this topic, they're not the ones doing that...you are. But really, I think we are deviating way too much with this...and like I said, it wasn't even about poverty that James was making his tweets...just calling out the ****** him and his wife got with some of GW managers' behavior given their specific situations... Edited July 27, 2021 by Sarouan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Golub87 Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 Just now, ArkanautDadmiral said: But if I feel like I have all I want and all I need does that not make me rich? How much more material wealth are you saying I should have to ensure I’m not poor in reality anymore? First of all I am glad that you feel like you have all that you need. That is genuinely great. Second of all being rich is not "good". Being rich means having innocent blood on your hands, directly or indirectly. No one should strive to be rich. Rich people should not exist. Now to answer your question: in order to not be poor you need to be the owner of capital that is capable of producing more capital. That is the dividing line between the rich and the poor. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadDice0809 Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 1 hour ago, Sunshine said: Whilst I also agree with the sentiments you are trying to portray, my wife earns less than the national living wage and I find your post dictating what we can afford not only highly inaccurate but offensive. We own a house, car, have 2 kids, can afford holidays to Asia each year, and can afford numerous hobbies for both ourselves and our kids. Whilst this is because I earn a comfortable salary myself, it shows that just because my wife is on a salary below the national living wage, she is not in poverty. The phrase poverty wage is therefore not only an inaccurate phrase but is demeaning as through its use you are categorising people. You get on this high horse about how insulting poverty wage is, and then list all this things you do despite this 'poverty wage' and then admit its ONLY because you make a 'comfortable wage'... which i will assume is more than the poverty wage your wife makes. And makes your combined income double that amount anyway. At least. Buddy what are earth was that post trying to prove? I am honestly confused here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarouan Posted July 27, 2021 Share Posted July 27, 2021 6 minutes ago, Golub87 said: Second of all being rich is not "good". Being rich means having innocent blood on your hands, directly or indirectly. No one should strive to be rich. Rich people should not exist. You know, that way of thinking is awfully close to very dark things in our history's past...and we already know how it ends... It's never good to be that extremist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts