Originally posted by StarrmanPoor is living off off less than $12 000/year with 3 children. It's not how much you make it's what you do with it that counts.
You need to reassess your definition of poor. If you wnat for nothing then you can hardly be classed as poor. Poor is when you don't have the resources to obtain the things you need, let alone th ethings you want.
Originally posted by StarrmanIt's the people who surround you that make the definition of poor.
You need to reassess your definition of poor. If you wnat for nothing then you can hardly be classed as poor. Poor is when you don't have the resources to obtain the things you need, let alone th ethings you want.
It is very different if you live in the first, second or third world.
Any way that's my two cents.
Originally posted by mokkoThose two statements contrdict each other. Either poor is monetary in your eyes, in which case it does matter how much you have. Or it is not, in which case poor cannot be classed as living off a particular amount. Which is it?
Poor is living off off less than $12 000/year with 3 children. It's not how much you make it's what you do with it that counts.
Poor, where I come from, is having no job, living in a council house and off jobseekers allowance (approx $5000 p.a. although I've converted to dollars roughly). Such that they can't afford toiletries, transport (in London this is extortionate, about $10 a day for a travelcard), clothing etc.
Originally posted by StarrmanIt's not contradictory. Some people are truly stupid with their money. Just because you don't make alot of money doesn't mean you have to be stupid about it. If you don't have a large income and you go spend what little you have on 3 T bone steaks that will feed your family for one night or you clip coupons buy sale items and live within your means it's going to make a difference. So just because you have two exact same incomes doesn't mean you will have the exact same monetary isues in each household. Every item I have I got by sheer determination and by choosing to put my $5 away instead of doing something foolish with it. We're faced with life altering decisions ever day. One of them is how to make that $1 dollar stretch to it's utmost potential. Do you pick a penny up off the street when you see one? I sure do. And they all add up.
Those two statements contrdict each other. Either poor is monetary in your eyes, in which case it does matter how much you have. Or it is not, in which case poor cannot be classed as living off a particular amount. Which is it?
Poor, where I come from, is having no job, living in a council house and off jobseekers allowance (approx $5000 p.a. although ...[text shortened]... s, transport (in London this is extortionate, about $10 a day for a travelcard), clothing etc.
Originally posted by mokkoNevertheless, the potential for you to survive is there, even if the effor tis high. I would not call this poor. Poor, the way I see it, is not being able to make ends meet regardless of the amount of effort put in.
It's not contradictory. Some people are truly stupid with their money. Just because you don't make alot of money doesn't mean you have to be stupid about it. If you don't have a large income and you go spend what little you have on 3 T bone steaks that will feed your family for one night or you clip coupons buy sale items and live within your means it's going ...[text shortened]... Do you pick a penny up off the street when you see one? I sure do. And they all add up.
Originally posted by StarrmanWould you suggest that someone who doesn't go to Opera, because they've never been in the oppertunity to learn how to enjoy it, is poor?
Nevertheless, the potential for you to survive is there, even if the effor tis high. I would not call this poor. Poor, the way I see it, is not being able to make ends meet regardless of the amount of effort put in.
Originally posted by StarrmanWell on the matter of perspective I do live in a generally wealthy country. The poor are, for the most part, looked after. But when I was a kid I was determined to be on my own and I have been alot worse off than I am now. I do know what it's like to have nothing. No place to sleep and nothing but a half jar of peanut butter to eat for 3 days. But I also know that there were decisions made that contributed to those circumstances. Go without long enough and eventually you will die or you will learn how to survive. We adapt to our enviroment. It just so happens my enviroment is not one of extreme poverty, although we have homeless people, I've been one of them.
Nevertheless, the potential for you to survive is there, even if the effor tis high. I would not call this poor. Poor, the way I see it, is not being able to make ends meet regardless of the amount of effort put in.
Poverty is a state of mind. If you feel hopeless, if you see nothing but hopelessness you will become hopelessly lost in an enviroment of despair. And it's people who don't have love and who aren't surrounded by supportive and encouraging people who succumb to hopelessness the most.
If you feel desire to live, desire to change, if you see life full of opportunities and take them, utalize them you will prosper. I didn't get to the place I'm at now by fluke chance. I took every opportunity available to me due to my circumstances. Where I come from there are plenty of organizations more than willing to help people pull themselves up out of the pit of despair. Free budgeting courses, job employment skills, job placement organizations, Life skills course, dealing with stress semenars, free mental health organizations, shelters, soup kitchens, clothing vouchers the list is endless.
I realize that mabye not every society has these opportunities nor is fortunate enough to live in a country that provides every citizen with the luxury of making changes in their lives but it begins with support and someone reaching out and believing in the abilities every person has to be succesfull.
It's up to every individual to seek out their own opportunities and their own support systems. To be allowed to be taught how to love yourself enough to strive for the best, even if that best is still considered far below the standards of others.
It all stems back to the meaning of life: Love. To love and support each other. To not turn a blind eye and to help those in greater need than yourself. It could be as simple as volunteering your time to teach grown ups to read or spending time and attention to a child who may not be getting as much as they deserve. Wow, you can tell I haven't had any sleep when I just ramble on for hours! Might as well stay up now and rable on some more. 😀
Originally posted by mokkoI dunno, that seems so, how can I put this? Umm... surreal. The way I see it, love is the ultimate selfishness, people use it interchangably with notions of altruism, charity etc, but I think that's a mistake. The basic function of love is to ensure two things, which inevitably boil down to just one. a) That nobody else can have what you have b) That your social/familial group is loyal and faithful within its boundaries. This bois down to ensuring your particular tribe, be that a family, a group of friends or just you and your partner, are protected and protect alike, enabling them to be successful.
Well on the matter of perspective I do live in a generally wealthy country. The poor are, for the most part, looked after. But when I was a kid I was determined to be on my own and I have been alot worse off than I am now. I do know what it's like to have nothing. No place to sleep and nothing but a half jar of peanut butter to eat for 3 days. But I also know ...[text shortened]... p when I just ramble on for hours! Might as well stay up now and rable on some more. 😀
I just can't believe in any holy or spiritual sense of love, nor that love truly transcends into the realm of selflessness.