To be shocked at this comment about poverty?

[abacucat]

I have been thinking for a few days about a comment a MNer made on a thread about poverty. She said that she has nearly been in tears because a woman at the toddler group she went to had a hole in her shoe and thus had wet feet.
I have a hole in my shoe. I got a wet foot today. I don't think this is a big deal or worthy of "nearly being in tears". Surely it is pretty normal to have to wait a bit to be able to afford to replace things like shoes?
I just do't see it as a big deal at all, and I think this comment was OTT.
AIBU?

Not having money left over for any luxuries is bad enough. Not having money for necessities is living on the bread line and shoes are necessary.

I tend to measure poverty on a scale which includes how the poor live in other countries so even though we have quite a low income, I feel wealthy.

Of course you do, you own your own home in an expensive city .

Some of these posts are like a Dickens Costume Party. 'Oh, I'm not poor but I just love walking round in holey shoes!' 'I earn well but I only have one pair of shoes' like it's some type of virtue.

FFS. I'm not poor. But the fuck I think it's cool to walk round in shoes with holes in them in this country.

I've got over a hundred pairs of shoes. My son has about 10 himself and his foot is still growing. My daughter's might still be growing and she has about 40 pairs.

Not being able to afford a pair of shoes in 2018 is a pathetic commentary on our society. I agree ralfees.

Some of those toy drives only want brand new toys in their packaging.
Are the decent quality, nice condition, second-hand things I buy for my own DC not good enough for "those in need" then? hmm

That usually has to do with the charity's indemnity insurance, and no one has to be grateful for the scraps for anyone's table.

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

I've just read this thread and realised I'm a very lucky person with too many shoes! However I am at work in a pair of boots (Primark, 3 years old!) that I realised on the way in leak. I've made a mental note to put them out for recycling when I get home but I wont because I hate parting with shoes and will probably do the same again in a few weeks time. There could be 100 different scenarios behind her leaky shoe! I think there would probably be other visual clues as to whether the woman was poverty stricken or not! If she was dressed head to to in Armani/Gucci/Jigsaw and driving a Bentley then she probably just loved her shoes! If she was walking long distances and dressed in old tired/has obviously seen better days Primark then maybe she was struggling!

I had wet feet last week as it rained unexpectedly but I love those boots and they go with everything and are comfy so I will keep wearing them until I find a replacement that I like. Unless you know the back story behind the hole in the shoes then you don't know if it's poverty or if the person just can't be bothered replacing them or are on the lookout for a certain type of shoe or boot.

I do this quite regularly. Got several kids, so by the time I've finished getting one new clothes/shoes, another needs them, so I have to wait some time. But i don't consider myself to be poor. I've got enough to pay bills, feed the kids, put clothes on their back and shoes on their feet. Plus xmas and by the birthday presents. Yes, i can't get just what i want and have to save up for big things, but don't we all? Thanks to my late father in law, we have to no longer worry about rent or be on a pay as you go meter, as he left us his house.

Responding to the above, I imagine all but the very richest have to save up for something the difference is whether 'saving up for the big things' means saving up for a pair of High Street shoes, or saving up for a new sportscar/second home/ski holiday.

This is 2018 not 1820! Having to put up with holes in shoes because you cannot afford a new pair is a disgraceful comment on UK society and the crucifying austerity of eight years of the Tories

Yeah cause no one went without under labour. 🤣

And again how the fuck do you know it's about society, the op has not commented on what's caused her predicament. Plenty people are skint because they smoke, do drugs, got into debt for goods they didn't need, dont work, or don't work full time, both through choice.

Arguing someone's financial situation is about society and not them with no clue as to what caused their situation is as ridiculous as blaming the Tories. Society or the Tories is not to blame for the feckless.

And again let me say I'm sure rhe op isn't one of those people, but the fact remains many are. Personal responsibility is a thing.

In case it escaped your notice, let me blow your mind. Poverty has existed in this country for centuries. And it always will and it's not always about society, sometimes it's about the individual and their choices.

Visible holes are different to knackered soles that leak at bit - do we know which this was? If your shoes are talking to each other and you haven't found it a financial priority to replace them yet you might be poor. If the sole is just a bit secretly leaky and there's a damp patch on your sock, you might just be lazy. Or really love the shoes. Or not have time to shop for some. Or it's been dry out for a while and you forgot they leaked. Etc etc.

She might have other shoes at home but in different styles that wouldnt have matched her outfit so chose to wear the holey ones? I have battered shoes I keep in case I have to walk long distances, I'd wear them and be comfy rather than wear shiny new ones and limp for the next 2 days tbh.

@Bluntness100 are you seriously blaming all people living in poverty for their circumstances with the implication that they deserve it?

I think that did you no favours shepherds

Not being able to afford the buy a £30-40 pair of shoes because your old ones have a hole in the sole would definitely fit my definition of poverty, as that implies you have literally no financial buffer to purchase a relatively cheap essential item. Yes, there may be people in even greater poverty, but poverty it is.

Self medicating has increased over the past 10 years .... if you cannot ever envisage a £260 day out being achievable.. a fiver quid a week bottle of wine might see you through

I make my own wine, and over time it's now really cheap, but the investment I've had to put into it would be cost prohibitive for a lot of people. Similarly, switching to vaping would be, too, as you need an initial outlay to buy a good one (I don't smoke but my h used to and switched to vaping some years ago and his vape kit was about 60 quid)

I don’t understand your point.

If your child needs a cardigan then that needs prioritising over wine.

If she doesn’t then what’s the problem?

I do have an issue with some level of prioritising because it doesn’t take much to tip into the really selfish irresponsible zone. A mum who spends £5 a week on wine is not an issue as such but that’s £20 a month and if a child is without certain essentials then effectively it’s irresponsible to some degree. But where do you draw the line? My parents also felt they worked hard or deserved their alcohol and fags, and it came at the cost to me and my Dsis, at the level of poor we were it was inevitable it would - drinking and smoking really priced at a point where it is a luxury. I’m not going to be the person who says I ever deny myself a luxury - I don’t! But when you are that poor, you are essentially drinking your children’s clothing. There are multiple reasons why people do it, and justify it to themselves. I totally get people are depressed and miserable in poverty, I have been there and made crap choices. But there isn’t an excuse for it overall - you just own up to it surely?

@Bluntness100 are you seriously blaming all people living in poverty for their circumstances with the implication that they deserve

I'm not sure if I explained it wrong or you have reading comprehension issues so let me be very clear,

No I am not,

I am saying that some people are in poverty as they chose not to work. Choose to booze, choose to gamble, choose to do drugs, choose to smoke, this can't be disputed, it's a simple fact of life. Others are in poverty through no fault of their own.

If some woman came on here and said I can't afford shoes for my kids, because my husband snorts cocaine every night, smokes forty a day, and spends every night down the pub, not one person would post and say society is to blame,

Does this mean I am saying that's the same for everyone in poverty. Clearly not, not least because I personally grew up in poverty, and extreme poverty, we were homeless at one point before being given charity housing, I had many a nights dinner of a beetroot sandwich, two bits of white bread with A couple of bits of beetroot in the middle. Because that's all we could afford. Beans were too extravagant.

So no, I don't think it's everyone, but I do absolutely know, from living amongst it, that some of it is down to poor lifestyle choices.

Is that clear enough or shall i explain it some more?

And now dh's shoes are completely broken, FML. Oh well, it's nearly Christmas, merry Christmas everyone :)

That's your prerogative 3 wild ones and Birdie! It's all about perspective and how we personally perceive poverty. I'll save my tears for the families/ people who are worried about how they will or actually are unable to eat this month/ heat their homes or indeed, afford their homes IF they have one. If that makes me determined.....ball back at you. It would seem you're just as determined to cling to your views as I am to mine. I'll worry about the poverty across the world, you worry about people with holes in their shoes in good old Blighty. I don't see that as poverty and I do feel sorry for anyone who is moved to tears by a person with holes in their shoes. How on earth do they cope emotionally if they consider poverty to be a holey shoe? They surely must spend their lives perpetually sobbing and chest beating at the utter hopelessness of life for over half the world's population.

Some of those toy drives only want brand new toys in their packaging.
Are the decent quality, nice condition, second-hand things I buy for my own DC not good enough for "those in need" then? hmm

Perhaps the children they're serving have never had a brand new toy. Or rarely had one. How could you begrudge an impoverished child a brand new toy?

And it always will and it's not always about society, sometimes it's about the individual and their choices

I do agree with Bluntness. Poor decisions, lack of work ethic, addiction and personal wants play the biggest part. Society is not to blame for that, its personal responsibility.

Why not point that out on the original thread, why start a TAAT?

We struggle financially (due to long term disability) but we drink wine fairly regularly.
It isn’t expensive though and not drinking wouldn’t resolve any of our financial issues. I make wine - my mum gifted me the equipment and buys a 30 bottle kit which I make up and then we split the bottles equally. My mum gets cheap decent tasting wine and I get free wine for my efforts
To an outsider though it probably looks like we prioritise wine over buying other things.