Poverty doesn’t discriminate
A tale of two worlds described in Unison
Some countries are fortunate enough to not have a class system but most places do
And you will generally find a divide between those who are wealthy and those who are poor.
Now I would like to define poverty as a form of abuse before I start, and its a socially (and sometimes self inflicted) induced abuse, which is derived based on a defined social structure which influences capitalism and individualism. And no one is particularly immune from it.
At a glance, one would hypothesise that those who have less money at their disposal are more likely to go through more hardships and therefore suffer more than their more wealthy counterparts
The truth of the matter is that unless one has lived two entirely different lives on either side of the breadline, it is impossible to state and also, they are required to live all our lives on both sides of the spectrum so the results aren’t just individually skewed.
The thing is that we honestly just don’t k now and the statement is impossible to back up. The pain and suffering of one person is completely relative to them. If you have multiple people in the same predicament, they can react to it very differently, especially when you take into account social conditioning.
Case study x 1
In the West being without electricity for a week would drive alot of us insane while in many countries, that is the norm. They would consider life without electricity as the norm, so in this essence, it has no impact on how they would perceive everyday suffering. Sure they can appreciate not having it, just like the average person can appreciate not having a private jet, however, it has never been part of their daily life essentials, so it has no impact on how they perceive their life.
Case study x 2
And some people would also find the ability to go without certain things easier than others. If you took a mobile phone off the average teenager for a month, they may go mad, however, if you took this off a pensioner, it probably would have a limited impact on how they have go through their day. So the reasoning for suffering has an impact on how much of your life you have gone without something and how much that something has influenced your life.
The bigger picture
Also to counter, the length of time someone endures a situation doesn’t directly correlate with their suffering of it. you could never look a rape victim in the eye and tell her that her pain is less than someone who had been raped more than once. To her, her pain is potentially everything, just like someone who has been offended multiple times.
This is because the impact of that situation relative to your starting position is a factor. Not only this but the impact itself and its perceived severity also comes into play.
If someone suffers for their entire life, the impact is no less significant to someone who suffers for an instant and is scarred with that impact for the rest of their life. Or even at a stage further those who perceive their imminent suffering.
Case study x 3
Take someone who falls out of a plane for example who has vertigo. Their fear of falling and dying during that incident may be so severe, that they end up having a heart attack before they even hit the ground, the shock of the potential suffering is enough to overwhelm said suffering.
And this is very true with people who suffer from mass anxiety, the fear of engaging in certain situations is far greater than being in said situation 99% of the time.
So when it comes to perceived poverty, why is this considered any different.
Case study x 4
Someone who lives on the breadline all the time, for some extend and purposes, is able to manage that situation, even if it is for a given time. Now I know there is a another factor that occurs which makes prolonged poverty unbearable but I will get back to that in due course.
However, if you take away everything from someone who is not normally used to having anything, then they may find living on the breadline even worse. Infact, they don’t even have to be close to the breadline, simply just having significantly less may be enough to simulate a similar batch of emotions than his impoverished friend.
If you are starving your entire life or just for one instance, in that moment, your suffering is real and it isn’t necessarily fair for one to say that someone should simply get a job and get over it, or that they aren’t entitled to feel bad because they’ve had a silver spoon in their mouth all their life.
Case Study x 5
Imagine if you said that to an abused child, they were lower category on the adoption list because their abuse, even as legitimate as someone else, is null and void because they had a private education. What would you expect this child below to reply to that?
One of two real differences
The only thing that is likely to influence and differentiate between the rich and the pauper in this situation is a person’s hope of ever exiting it.
if they have plenty of hope, they can strive and its the same as if they have no hope and decide to endure, but it’s the oscillating levels of hope that really do the damage in the inbetween sectors, where people have no grounding of the situation they are in and most have no plan into how to make it better.
That is hope and potentially options as well to exit said predicament at least in some point in time.
This is the one of the only real difference between the rich and the poor in times of need I see.
Case Study x 6
Here for a start, the majority of people out there who are rich aren’t actually rich per say. Their finances are tied up in the value of products, they don’t have a big vault where money is just being accumulated. Anyone with half a brain cell would realise the bank is the most pointless place to keep their funds, Your money is only guaranteed to 35,000 if it collapses and also there is no real way of making money out of your dough there, plus the tax man will come after your arse and spank you so hard, you’ll be coughing pennies out of your sphincter for about a fortnight. So most people have it invested in something, businesses, and shares, and properties and hedge funds etc and also generally possessions.
And generally have just as most ‘relative’ disposable income as their poor equivalents
And these things have a likelihood to crash and when they crash, they crash hard.
Two people both earn a certain annual wage,. Regardless of this wage, people will notoriously always increase their living standards to match their needs. Or Vice versa depending on your view point. It’s simply human nature to adapt and hence why if you take away cost of living rises, people are unable to save even with yearly increments in salary rise. This point is true across all economic standings, rich and poor alike.
So one lady is on 10,000 a year and another is earning 10,000,000 a year.
Now here is the clincher. All of a sudden, they both lose half their earnings but the living expenses are still due payment (since everyone is pretty much on credit these days).
Now the impoverished lady is down 5,000, which is shit. Handling bailiffs and cutting back and attempting to get additional credit is almost impossible.
And while the rich person is still earning a fair whack, they are now 5,000,000 in debt. All their assets probably won’t cover a dime of it and the cumulative compound interest of their debt is going to end up being uncountable.
I cry when i lose a twenty quid note, imagine being on the receiving end of losing a 5 million dollar investment overnight, and having all your assets offset against that.
The impoverished person is probably better on living on a small amount of money so the adjustment is really crap but can be handled. Plus there are tons of organisations who want to held handle that kinda debt.
Even at the worst case scenario, arranging a court date with a decent law student will allow you to plead your case in front of a judge and get your interest frozen and monthly payments organised (please don’t be scared of courts people, they are generally on your side if you take a few tiny steps before you get there, my family have helped countless people in this situation so I know firsthand its probably the best option with runaway debt).
Saying this, though owing just a hundred quid can mean the world. Even smaller amounts than that. I had less than a fiver in my account once and I couldn’t get money from the cash machine since it required a minimum 10 pound withdrawal. Therefore I couldn’t eat for the entire weekend.
So a small amount of debt can mean alot.
But what I can’t imagine is being 5 million in debt.
If you tried to pay it back at40 a month, it would take you over 10,400 years to get there and that’s not even taking interest into the equation.
There is nowhere to hide at that kinda debt and everything you have it taken and you are plunged into a crazy spiral. Plus your monthly outgoings are still at roughly 83,000 (which ironically is what the impoverished person is expected to earn across a decade). SO it keeps racking up
What makes it worse is the millionaire is completely unaware of hot to live a poor lifestyle, how to slum, how to cut back and how to live without.
It takes them completely for six and they are literally a fish out of water.
And no organisation will touch you for credit with that type of asset loss, knowing everything you have is losing value by the second.
So it can be just as shit, if not more shit than the pauper going through similar relative situations.
So what’s the difference then?
Like I said earlier, there are only two differences in this.
One of them is the hope of getting out of this situation or getting your family out of it is probably less for those who are already poor.
They also have the rich and the middle class who hinder their progression since they always require people poorer than them in order for their worlds to exist the way they do, I mean, they aren’t going to blow their own noses and wipe their own arses, right?
The second and probably the most important is that, the rich who go through traumatic experiences, aren’t given any sympathy. They’ve had it good, it’s about time they got some negative karma to balance it out. Everyone wants those at the top to fall, once we’ve raised them to their heroic proportions, we all await the fall and provide them with no comfort when they do.
A gambler who steals from his family is given support to recover. A gambler who steals from the nation is seen as a sick individual. This is true, while only the other gamblers can sympathise as they wish they could play on as high a stakes as their rich counter part.
Even in that instant where both parties can understand one another, when it comes to poverty, it adopts very much an capitalist system, where the poor look down upon the rich when they come into it.
as they say, haters gonna hate
So who suffers more?
I’m not here to say one is worse, rather that both are bad. Both are shit. Millionaires and poor people alike either live through this or justify taking their own lives doing so.
If it’s bad enough to take your life, then who has the right to tell you, you haven’t suffered?