This video is sponsored by CuriosityStream. Sign up today, and you also get access to
Nebula, a streaming service created by and for your favorite independent creators. Hi I’m T1J. This video, like every other video would not
be possible without the support of my Patrons and Members, including homies like SonnetQ,
Twirlinghaze, Evan, and Alejandro Cedano. Big shoutouts to all the Homies, and if you’d
like to support me and my channel, you can become a Homie yourself by clicking the Join
button below the video, or by checking out my page on Patreon. So being poor kinda sucks. I think most people who are or have been poor
would probably agree. Financial issues and lack of access to basic
necessities are one of the biggest sources of stress and misfortune, and sometimes also
illness and death for people across the world. In developing countries, the existence and
pervasiveness of poverty can be the result of various circumstances, such as war and
other political violence, historical colonialism, or ineffective or corrupt government. But there are various countries that generally
do not have these problems, at least not to anywhere near the same degree. Yet poverty and near-poverty continues to
exist to some extent in virtually all of those places. For the purposes of this video, I’ll define
poverty as “not having enough resources and/or income to meet a basically acceptable
standard of living.” And of course that’s kind of a nebulous
definition, as that standard might be a bit subjective. So there are cases where it’s very clear,
and there are also borderline cases. And of course the amount of money and resources
that is adequate for a person’s needs will vary widely depending on what country they
live in. Some snarky people like to say, ‘Well a
dirt poor person in America, is 10 times richer than them poor kids in Africa.” And it’s like yeah, How does that help in
any way? What’s the point of saying that? But like said, I think most people agree that
poverty sucks. I think even people who have never been poor
probably at the very least pity poor people. They understand that it’s a bad thing that
decreases the quality of people’s lives. And I think that most people aren’t sociopaths
and generally dislike watching other people suffer. And by any reasonable account, rich countries
with functioning governments and access to vast resources should be able to mostly eliminate
poverty if it became a priority to do so. The money is there, the resources are there,
we can see it. In reality, there’s enough food and resources
in the world such that no one on Earth should be poor, especially as technology advances. There’s this idea floating around this conversation
that the world either is now or will soon be overpopulated, such that our planet will
literally be unable to sustain us. And insofar as millions of people live in
extreme poverty and die every day from preventable causes, I’d say we’re already there. But in a future where we reexamine our lifestyle
choices and reframe poverty as unacceptable, it’s possible the Earth could sustain even
more people than we have now. But we don’t do that really as a human society,
or as nations, and in many cases, we don’t even try. I mean, some people and some organizations
work to reduce poverty, but it doesn’t seem to be largely considered a coordinated priority
by human society at large. And I think that’s for many reasons, but
I think one of those reasons is because a lot developed societies have been conditioned
to tolerate poverty. There are other reasons that developed countries
neglect to sufficiently address poverty, but that’s the one I’m gonna focus on in this
video. So we’re in election season here in the
United States, and a problem that we have when it comes to elections is the various
ways politicians engage in voter suppression. One of the ways they attempt to make it harder
for certain people to vote is by requiring official identification before they can cast
their ballot. Now this may not sound like a big deal, but
for very poor people, this can be a significant roadblock. Where I live, getting a state-issued I.D costs
about 40 dollars (which is actually a recent increase, it used to be closer to 25). Not to mention the gas money it takes to get
to a DMV or other county office. And this is assuming you even own or are physically
able to drive a car, because if not, the transportation costs are likely even higher. Because of this a lot of people don’t bother
getting IDs, or renewing them when they expire, particularly the elderly or disabled, students,
and poor people. Sometimes when I talk about this with people,
the conversation kinda goes like this: “Well I understand 40 bucks is not a small
amount, but why don’t they just suck it up and go pay it if they wanna vote?” “Some people can’t afford to pay it!” “I know some people are struggling, but
they are just going to have cut out the McDonalds and Beer Money for a couple of weeks, if it’s
that important to them!” “No, you’re not getting it, some people
don’t have an extra 40 dollars period! Also you shouldn’t have to give up things
you like just to vote. Voting is a basic right.” “You’re telling me that an American citizen
with a job can’t scrounge together 40 dollars to get an ID.” “Yeah sometimes!” I’ve realized that one big reason some people
tolerate poverty is because they don’t actually understand that it exists. And this comes from progressive people even
sometimes. Like, they get that some people live on the
streets, and that some people have to work multiple low paying jobs to survive, but they’re
just ignorant of the tangible day to day struggles. Yeah, some people literally don’t have 40
dollars. Sometimes when you come home from work, pay
the bills, and feed the kids, there’s zero left after that. Sometimes you don’t even have enough to
do those things. Sometimes you have to make a choice between
paying rent or buying groceries for the month. A few months ago sociology professor Dr. Sara
Goldrick-Rab tweeted that “Every day #RealCollege students drop out of college because they
can’t afford an unexpected bill of even $200.” To which conservative economist Michael Strain
responded, “Can they not get a credit card?” He later clarified, “To be clear I have
no doubt that many hard-working students do not have ample financial resources. But concern over $200 is surely exaggerated. And “I think dropping out due to financial
stress is a real issue. But finding $200 isn’t.” I had to read this exchange a bunch of times
to see if I was missing something, maybe there’s context lost because it is Twitter after all. Twitter’s still bad. But it really seems to be inconceivable to
Mr. Strain that a poor college student would not be able to put together $200. To the extent that he is suggesting taking
on credit card debt for money that that he knows the hypothetical student doesn’t have! If you ask the question, why are poor people
poor? you’ll no doubt get a different answer depending on who you ask. My answer would be that, like everything,
it’s fucking complicated. But some people think they’ve got it all
figured out. Based on the polls I’ve found, a growing
number of people seem to basically understand that there are dysfunctional and unequal systems
that result in widespread poverty. But a roughly equal number of people blame
poverty on other things, such bad choices, drugs, and lack of work ethic. Add that to the fact that a lot of people
attribute financial success to hard work and ambition, it’s no wonder why Americans and
residents of other developed countries are willing to tolerate poverty. It’s the nebulous and problematic concept
of “meritocracy”. The people who are smarter, and who work harder
and who make better choices should and will inevitably succeed. So why should we help the poor? If they worked harder and made better choices,
they wouldn’t be poor! It is justifiable for a lazy or immoral person
to be punished for those choices. This style of argument is really popular in
right wing circles, but I think even people on the other parts of the spectrum subconsciously
internalize this idea that wealth is a reward for exceptional people. And if there were no consequences for poor
choices, it would devalue the notions of hard work and talent. Now I personally find it an appealing concept;
that people who work harder and have great ideas should be proportionally rewarded for
that. However, in practice this seems not to really
play out quite like that. Sure there are people who become financially
successful because they worked hard or because they had a profitable idea or made smart investments. There’s an idea on the left that every rich
person either became rich by being evil or just kind of lucked into their wealth through
inheritance or nepotism or something, which is kind of silly. I mean, while some people become rich due
to inheritance or luck, probably most rich people became rich due in large part to their
own work and choices they personally made. But it’s just so much more complicated than
that, to the extent that it could be its own video. Thomas Corley, a researcher for Business Insider
asserted that there were four major types of people who become millionaires. The Saver-Investor: A person who consistently
saved and invested their money over a period of many years, essentially their whole lives. The Big Company Senior Executive: Essentially
people who found a job at a big company and worked their way up to a senior management
position. The Virtuoso: People who have invested time
into becoming one the best in their field, setting them apart from the competition. And The Dreamer-Entrepeneur: The person who
had a dream and pursued it into extreme wealth. This includes business owners, but also authors,
musicians, and actors. And these are all fine and good, but the thing
I noticed that they all have in common, is that they kind of all require you to already
not be poor. Arguably, you can still save and invest money
when you’re poor, I personally think you should – but I acknowledge, it is extremely
presumptuous to ask a person who lives paycheck to paychek to put 20% of their income into
savings and investments. And of course, even if you do save, if you’ve
got barely any income, your potential gains in the future are severely stunted. And you can’t just walk into some corporate
headquarters and force them to hire you. You’ve got to develop qualifications and
experience, which usually requires going to college, which in this country is very expensive. And if you’re taking that route, you have
to hope that A. the company and industry remains successful and B. You don’t get laid off
for some reason. Similarly becoming a virtuoso or a dreamer
usually requires a tremendous time and money investment. You’ve got to pay for classes and education. You might need equipment or technology. It costs money to start and run a business. It’s not something most poor people can
even really do. And it’s acknowledged by Corley that most
of these paths require some amount of risk, and many of the people took huge setbacks
in their paths to wealth. The problem is that most poor people can’t
afford to take those kinds of risks. It’s often literally a matter of eating
or going hungry. Shelter or being out on the street. Life or death. But really the main problem with this mindset
is it doesn’t add up from the other end. Sure people work hard and succeed. But people also work hard and struggle. One the absolute most infuriating things people
say is that people are poor because they don’t work hard enough. People who say poor folks don’t work hard,
must have never gotten to know a poor person before. Those who live in poverty are essentially
required to work hard, or else they can’t really live. You telling me that single mom that works
65 hours a week across two jobs in order to feed her kids isn’t working hard? The folks slaving away in hot kitchens and
dirty factories to keep the lights on, they don’t work hard? Absolutely fuck out of here with that noise! This is the where this whole concept falls
apart. We pretend to glorify hard work, but at the
same time we devalue hard work when it’s done by poor people. Methinks it’s not really about the work. But really, ultimately. Even if the reason poor people are poor is
because they don’t work hard or aren’t smart enough- which I’d argue it largely
isn’t- it doesn’t matter. What kind of sadistic society looks upon a
class of people who can barely afford food and other basic necessities, and say, “I’m
okay with that.” This absurdity was lampooned in George Bernard
Shaw’s play “Major Barbara:” “If a man is indolent, let him be poor. If he is drunken, let him be poor. If he is not a gentleman, let him be poor. If he is addicted to the fine arts or to pure
science instead of to trade and finance, let him be poor. If he chooses to spend his wages on his beer
and his family instead of saving it up for his old age, let him be poor. Let nothing be done for "the undeserving":
let him be poor. Serve him right!” And I see this sentiment expressed unironically,
in real life, all the time. It’s mind boggling! We’ve convinced ourselves so clearly that
poverty is the result of bad behavior that we’re willing to literally watch people
suffer. It’s amazing the ways in which humans rationalize
cruelty. We should want to keep people from suffering,
not as a reward for hard work or grit or sacrifice, but just because protecting people’s safety
and well-being is what decent humans and for that matter, government ought to do. The thing in this conversation that is bad,
is not laziness, or stupidity, or misfortune, or criminality or drugs. The thing at the forefront that is bad is
poverty. Perhaps the most disappointing reason that
individuals seem to tolerate poverty is the idea of a zero-sum, winners and losers game. There may still be some people out there who
glorify poverty, who think it’s humbling or holy. But in large part, I think most people don’t
want to be poor. I’d go as far as saying that most people
probably want to be wealthy. Not everybody desires to be a billionaire,
but it’s hard to argue against the assertion that being financially independent and flexible
is pretty much ideal. But in a society and in a world where there
is economic inequality, it makes sense that for some people to be wealthy, that probably
implies that other people have to not be wealthy. In order for there to be a boss, there has
to be people that the boss bosses. And because we demean and devalue labor that
is typically done by poor people, we’ve reached a point where nobody really wants
to do that kind of labor. We all want to be the boss. But somebody has to do it. Somebody has to work in kitchens, and scrub
toilets and do hair and take tickets at the movie theater. And we’re okay with those people barely
being able to afford basic needs, because somebody’s gotta do it. We just don’t want it to be us. We’ve got higher aspirations. It’s gotten so bad that some people actively
campaign against increasing wages, benefits and working conditions for people in these
types of jobs. They’re supposed to be the losers, that’s
what those jobs are for. They don’t deserve more money. But me, I deserve more. And you know maybe it is zero sum. There is a finite amount of wealth and resources
available in the world, and there is a shit ton of people, and that number continues to
grow. But as I implied earlier, I think there’s
enough to go around. It is ridiculous that there are, simultaneously,
people with more wealth than what is needed for a hundred lifetimes, and also people who
literally can’t afford food and shelter. It’s just not a dichotomy that should exist
in any just world. And to be fair, most of that wealth is being
horded by a very small number of people, who by and large don’t seem to want to give
it up. But I think a large reason they’ve be able
to pull this off is by working to convince us that we should tolerate poverty, and think
of wealth as a reward for clever people. But as you might have guessed, I don’t think
we should tolerate poverty. Poverty is suffering. Poverty ruins lives. It ruins legacies. It harms children. It kills people. Those facts alone should encourage us all
to take action to eliminate and prevent it, especially when the resources needed to do
so are readily available. And I don’t mean giving to charities, I
mean fixing the systems that reinforce it in the first place. And I want to be clear, it doesn’t matter
to me how many bad choices a person makes. First of all, a lot of times those choices
made under the duress of poverty. Poverty leads to unhappiness and desperation. It can cause stress and mental illness. Poor folks have less access to proper education
and mentoring. So yeah, maybe some bad choices were made. But also maybe not. Did a poor child choose to be born into a
family that was struggling to put food on the table? Do people choose the fact that jobs won’t
pay you any money unless you obtain a degree you can’t afford. Either way, when people are suffering, we
figure out how to fix that, regardless of how it that got way. It is in my view the only morally sound option. You don’t leave people to die just because
you think they made bad choices, unless you’re a monster. And if preventing suffering and death requires
some rich people to be less rich, that seems like a no-brainer of a tradeoff. But we’ll never get there until we decide
en masse that poverty is an unacceptable condition. We have to refer to poverty as what it truly
is. Human suffering. And allowing human suffering when we have
the tools to address it is tantamount to a crime against humanity. DAS JUS ME DOE. What do you think? Thanks for watching, and thanks to CuriosityStream
for sponsoring this video. CuriosityStream is a streaming service with
thousands of documentaries and non-fiction titles on pretty much every subject you can
imagine, science, history, nature, technology, they’ve got all of that, which includes
exclusive originals you can’t find anywhere else. I recommend this amusing and education four-part
series HISTORY, hosted by Peter Sagal. It is a humorous and informative series about
how money makes the world go ‘round. For better or for worse. Also, I just love Peter Sagal. The best part is, you can get CuriosityStream
for less than 2 dollars a month. Not bad. But if you’d like to try it out, you can
get your first month for free by going to curiositystream.com/t1j and using the promo
code “t1j”. An additional perk is that by signing up with
CuriosityStream, you’ll get access to Nebula, a new streaming service that was built by
and for independent creators, many of whom you may have heard of like CGPGrey, Lindsay
Ellis, and hbomberguy. Oh and hey look its me! Nebula features all of the educational and
video essay content that you know and love from YouTube (with no preroll ads by the way),
but also includes Nebula Originals, exclusive content that you can only find on Nebula. In fact that’s part of the reason Nebula
was established. To give creators a space to experiment with
new content without having to worry about whether or not it’s gonna get demonetized
or noticed by the almighty YouTube algorithm. This is when I’d normally say that by subscribing
to CuriosityStream you also support me and help me take my content to the next level,
and that’s still true, but in this case you’re also supporting an entire community
of thoughtful, talented creators.
Billionaires pay millionaires to tell us everything is okay.
Because we tolerate hierarchies, with in-groups and out-groups.
Why do we tolerate hierarchies with in-groups and out-groups?
I dunno, because we are still primates, I guess.
You gotta understand poverty is a feature of capitalism
Unless the answer the is capitalism, why would anyone watch?
Can't tell you how many times I've had to discuss with people in person and online how people dying because they're poor is unacceptable :/
Because no one actually cares :~)
I got some negative comments about posting a video by T1J because he's a liberal. I have no hard feelings against anyone who made these comments, I just want to clarify my intentions.
An argument T1J makes in this video is that, in a world with enough resources for all, it's disgustingly unethical to tolerate poverty.
I've heard self-identified socialists say it's ok for people to be poor if they "don't make an effort." So on this issue, T1J is more "radical" than a portion of leftists.
This message -- that every single person inherently deserves a good standard of living -- is foundational to socialist/communist thought, even if T1J doesn't take it to that conclusion.
Even if most people on r/BreadTube already agree with T1J on this, it's a good video to share with those who don't.
Another criticism I got (though from only one person) was on the title of my post:
This person took issue with me mentioning my video, thinking I was doing self-promotion. I don't see how, as
I didn't link to my video
didn't mention its name
spoke of my video only in a negative way.
I mentioned my video because I'm humbled that T1J made a more powerful argument than me and wanted to concede this.
Thank you for reading. :)
I really don't want to hear what T1J has to say after he's repeatedly thrown socialists under the bus!
T1J is a liberal, stop posting him here just because he sometimes levies mild critiques at capitalism while still fundamentally missing the point