upworthy
Education

A story about two pairs of boots illustrates how rich people get richer in ways poor people can't

It’s got nothing to do with bootstraps.

wealth, boots, Terry Pratchett, bootstraps, money, poor
Photo by Maxim Hopman on Unsplash

The Sam Vimes "Boots" Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness explains one way the rich get richer.

Any time conversations about wealth and poverty come up, people inevitably start talking about boots. The standard phrase that comes up is "pull yourself up by your bootstraps," which is usually shorthand for "work harder and don't ask for or expect help." (The fact that the phrase was originally used sarcastically because pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps is literally, physically impossible is rarely acknowledged, but c'est la vie.)

The idea that people who build wealth do so because they individually work harder than poor people is baked into the American consciousness and wrapped up in the ideal of the American dream. A different take on boots and building wealth, however, paints a more accurate picture of what it takes to get out of poverty.

Author Terry Pratchett is no longer with us, but his writing lives on and is occasionally shared on his official social media accounts. Recently, his Twitter page shared the "Sam Vimes 'Boots' Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness" from Pratchett's 1993 book "Men At Arms." This boots theory explains that one reason the rich are able to get richer is because they are able to spend less money.

If that sounds confusing, read on:

Pratchett wrote:

"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."

In other words, people who have the money to spend a little more upfront often end up spending less in the long run. A $50 pair of boots that last five years essentially cost you $10 a year. But if you can only afford $10 upfront for a pair of boots that last six months, that's what you buy—and you end up paying twice as much over a five-year period.

There are so many areas in which this principle applies when you're poor. Buying in bulk saves you money over the long run, but you have to be able to afford the bulk cost up front. A reliable car that doesn't require regular repairs will cost more than a beater, but if the beater is all you can afford, that's what you're stuck with. You'll likely spend the same or more over time than if you'd bought a newer/higher quality car, but without the capital (or the credit rating) to begin with, you don't have much choice.

People who can afford larger down payments pay lower interest rates, saving them money both immediately and in the long run. People who can afford to buy more can spend more with credit cards, pay off the balances, build up good credit and qualify for lower interest rate loans.

There are lots of good financial decisions and strategies one can utilize if one has the ability to build up some cash. But if you are living paycheck to paycheck, you can't.

Climbing the financial ladder requires getting to the bottom rung first. Those who started off anywhere on the ladder can make all kinds of pronouncements about how to climb it—good, sound advice that really does work if you're already on the ladder. But for people living in poverty, the bottom rung is just out of reach, and the walls you have to climb to get to it are slippery. It's expensive to be poor.

When people talk about how hard it is to climb out of poverty, this is a big part of what they mean. Ladder-climbing advice is useless if you can't actually get to the ladder. And yet, far too many people decry offering people assistance that might help them reach the ladder so they can start taking advantage of all that great financial advice. Why? Perhaps because they were born somewhere on the ladder—even if it was the bottom rung—and aren't aware that there are people for whom the ladder is out of reach. Or perhaps they're unaware of how expensive it is to be poor and how the costs of poverty keep people stuck in the pit. Hopefully, this theory will help more people understand and sympathize with the reality of being poor.

Money makes money, but having money also saves you money. The more money you have, the more wealth you're able to build not only because you have extra money to save, but also because you buy higher quality things that last, therefore spending less in the long run. (There's also the reality that the uber-wealthy will pay $5,000 for shoes they'll only wear a few times, but that's a whole other kind of boots story.)

Thanks, Terry Pratchett, for the simple explanation.


This story originally appeared two years ago.

From Your Site Articles
culture
Joy

A stray dog saves her dying puppy’s life by bringing her to the veterinarian in Istanbul

A dog's motherly instinct and trust in humans saved a puppy's life

@beylikduzu_alfa_veteriner

A stray dog brought her lifeless puppy to the doorstep of a local veterinarian clinic, saving its life.

In the Beylikdüzü district in Istanbul, security camera footage showed a stray dog holding a puppy in its mouth and bringing it to the doorstep of a local veterinary clinic. The veterinarian that answered the door found the puppy lifeless and took it in while the pup’s mother followed.

The puppy received emergency treatment, as it was dying from a slow heartbeat due to the cold outside. Throughout the treatment, the mother dog stayed at her puppy’s side. Thanks to quick action and care, the puppy survived and is being cared for at the clinic alongside its mother. This puppy turned out to be related to another puppy that was brought in by other animal lovers beforehand, with the belief that it was the sole survivor of its litter.

"We thought all of them had died. It turns out there was one sibling that survived,” said veterinarian and clinic owner, Baturalp Oğhan in an interview. “When our technician noticed the situation, he brought it inside. We realized the puppy's heart was beating. We placed it in intensive care. It is currently continuing treatment with its sibling."


A veterinarian treating a puppy on a table in a clinic as a mother dog watches nearbyThe puppy's mother stayed with her child as the veterinarian administered treatment.@beylikduzu_alfa_veteriner


While it is unfortunate that the rest of the litter had passed, this mother dog’s actions not only saved one of her pups but had reunited her with another one.

According to World Population Review, there is a pet dog in 30% of all households globally. There are 90 million pet dogs housed in the United States alone. Bear in mind, that is counting the dogs that are housed and cared for by humans. Just imagine how many dogs are still out there like that mother dog, along with the number of dogs that sadly didn’t make it like that lucky puppy.

Two puppies eating out of a bowlThe puppy is recovering nicely alongside its sibling.@beylikduzu_alfa_veteriner


While it is remarkable that this mother dog, out of memory, instinct, desperation, or a combination of those traits took her puppy to the clinic, the onus cannot be on dogs themselves to receive the help and care they need. Fortunately, there are several animal shelters and clinics that can help care for these animals, but they still need to find ways to get there. Not all of them have smart dog mothers that can get them to a helpful human vet.

Puppy sleeping against a mother dogThe puppy lives thanks to its mother's quick action and trust in local veterinarians.@beylikduzu_alfa_veteriner

If you wish to help out a stray animal, such as a dog or cat, there are some steps you can take to be prepared if the situation presents itself. The Humane Society has a bunch of quality tips, such as keeping your car with supplies like fresh water, bowls, pet food, heavy blankets,and such to keep the animal comfortable while waiting for animal control to arrive at the scene or if you choose to transport them yourself to a nearby shelter. Before you stock up, you should research to see if there are any state or local laws regarding housing lost or stray animals to make sure you’re following the legal methods.

We share a lot of space with “man’s best friend” and the least we can do is be a best friend back to them, especially when they’re in need.

From Your Site Articles
puppy
Health

Difference in how 'managers' and 'makers' view time explains why some hate meetings so much

Paul Graham's explanation is spot on.

Reese Jones/Facebook

The way makers use time makes meetings far more disruptive than they are for managers.

Most people don't look at their work calendar on any given day and say, "Yay! I have a meeting!" Most of us just understand and accept that meetings are a part of work life in most industries.

Some people, however, are far more negatively impacted by scheduled meetings than others. For people involved in creating or producing, meetings are actively disruptive to work in a way that isn't often the case for managers.

A viral post with an explanation from Paul Graham breaks down why.

Graham is a computer scientist, entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and author. In 2009, he described on his website the differences between the way managers and makers utilize work time and how meetings affect their workflow. It's a brilliant observation that rings true for people in various fields, and understanding this difference can help bridge the gap that often exists between those who work in creation or production and those who manage them.

Graham's explanation was shared by Reese Jones on Facebook with a graphic that shows the difference in how time is seen between managers (people who manage others—the bosses) and makers (writers, artists, programmers—the creators). The manager's time during the day is split into small blocks, whereas the maker's is split into two large chunks.

"One reason programmers dislike meetings so much is that they're on a different type of schedule from other people," Graham wrote. "Meetings cost them more."


Graham explained that managers and makers work on two different types of schedules. The manager's schedule looks more like an appointment book, with the day broken into one-hour intervals.

"You can block off several hours for a single task if you need to, but by default, you change what you're doing every hour," he explained. "When you use time that way, it's merely a practical problem to meet with someone. Find an open slot in your schedule, book them, and you're done."

Generally, the folks in power are on this kind of schedule. But those who make things don't think in hours. Writers, artists, programmers, and others who create for a living work in half-day units at least.

"You can't write or program well in units of an hour," wrote Graham. "That's barely enough time to get started."

Then he got to the heart of the problem with managers making meetings for makers:

"When you're operating on the maker's schedule, meetings are a disaster. A single meeting can blow a whole afternoon, by breaking it into two pieces each too small to do anything hard in. Plus you have to remember to go to the meeting. That's no problem for someone on the manager's schedule. There's always something coming on the next hour; the only question is what. But when someone on the maker's schedule has a meeting, they have to think about it.

"For someone on the maker's schedule, having a meeting is like throwing an exception. It doesn't merely cause you to switch from one task to another; it changes the mode in which you work."

Bingo. As a "maker" myself, I can attest to this description being spot on for me personally. If I have to attend a meeting, it's best for it to be right at the beginning or end of those two blocks of time. Tossing one into the middle of the morning or middle of the afternoon is far more disruptive than someone who isn't a maker might understand.

Many people in the comments complained about meetings being a waste of time, but I don't think that's the case all or even most of the time. I see the value in many kinds of meetings and as someone who largely works alone, I actually do sometimes look at the calendar and say "Yay! A meeting!" The issue isn't so much meetings themselves as their timing.

Graham explained that a meeting can sometimes blow half a day for a maker—not that the meeting itself takes half a day—purely due to the interruption of the workflow.

"Each type of schedule works fine by itself," he wrote. "Problems arise when they meet. Since most powerful people operate on the manager's schedule, they're in a position to make everyone resonate at their frequency if they want to. But the smarter ones restrain themselves, if they know that some of the people working for them need long chunks of time to work in."

Graham's post can be read in its entirety here. It's worth perusing whether you're a manager or a maker. The more we understand the different ways different people operate, the more we can learn to respect and honor one another's needs, which ultimately makes us all more successful.


This article originally appeared three years ago.

From Your Site Articles
Pop Culture

Cool video shows why everyone used to wear hats and then suddenly stopped

The change started around 1960.

via Warmbru Curiosity/YouTube

When did everyone stop wearing hats?

If you see old newsreel footage of men in the office or on commuter trains from the advent of the motion picture camera to the early ‘60s, nearly everyone is wearing a hat. Hats were just as common for women in that era. For a woman to go out without a hat in the first half of the 20th century was akin to going out without clothes.

The funny thing is that everyone’s headgear is so similar in the old-timey footage that it makes previous generations look like big-time conformists. Then, in the early ‘60s, everything changed, and men and women started to go out in public with their hair exposed. Why did such a big aspect of fashion seem to change overnight?

Warmbru Curiosity investigated the question recently in a popular YouTube video. Warmbru’s channel is a lighthearted look at some of the more unusual people and events from our history and how they have influenced the world in which we live.

Why did people stop wearing hats?

Warmbru says fashion changed dramatically after World War II, when people in developed countries began to care less about expressing their social status. “This was especially true among the younger generation the rise of youth culture in the 1950s and 1960s emphasized rebellion against traditional norms, including formal dress codes,” the YouTuber says.

- YouTubeyoutu.be

Another big reason for the change in fashion was technology. Cars became the preferred mode of transportation for many after World War II and indoor environments became more hospitable. “People spent far less time exposed to the elements as people increasingly moved to urban areas and started using cars,” Warmbru says. “The practicality of wearing hats diminishes. Hats can be cumbersome in cars and on public transport, improvements in heating and air conditioning reduce the need for hats to provide warmth.”

Warmbru adds that President John F. Kennedy, elected in 1960, rarely wore a hat and his decision to go bareheaded became associated with modernity. Further, in 1963, the mop-topped Beatles proudly flaunted their hatless heads as they shook them while singing, “Wooooo.” Hat-wearing among women began to decline around the same time as the restrictive and complex headgear clashed with the burgeoning women’s liberation movement.



The decline in hat purchases meant that manufacturers closed and the headgear became harder to come by. This reduced availability further contributed to the decline in hat-wearing. As fewer people wore hats, there became a greater demand for high-quality hair products and services. “Why spend a fortune at the hairdressers or the barbers just to cover the end result with a hat?” Warmbru asks.

Ultimately, there were many reasons why people stopped wearing hats. It appears that it was a combination of technology, influential people such as Kennedy and The Beatles, and the overwhelming mood of change that swept most of the Western world in the 1960s. But if one thing is true about fashion, it goes in cycles. So, it seems that hats may be ready for their big comeback.

This article originally appeared last year.

From Your Site Articles
history
Education & Information

Professor's hilariously exasperated message to students illustrates how teachers are so done

"I will then promptly print 100 copies of the assignment out, put them in a pile, light that pile on fire, and dance around the rubble as it burns. I will then put my hand on the smoldering embers so that I may feel again. Feel what, you might ask? Anything. Literally anything."

Photo by Vanessa Garcia from Pexels

A professor's message to students has gone viral.

If you know any teachers, you probably know how utterly exhausted they all are, from preschools all the way up through college. Pandemic schooling has been rough, to say the least, and teachers have borne the brunt of the impact it's had on students.

Most teachers I've known have bent over backwards to help students succeed during this time, taking kids' mental and emotional health into consideration and extending the flexibility and grace we all could use. But teachers have their own mental and emotional needs, too, and at some point, something's gotta give.

A college student posted screenshots of a professor's message on X (formerly Twitter) with the comment "someone PLEASE check on my professor." It's simply incredible.

The message reads:

"There is no class tomorrow. I've got some things to take care of regarding this and my other class, and my full time job. I have received countless emails about zeroes on assignments either through errors I've made, you've made, or simply people not realizing or knowing they were supposed to turn it in and then realizing in panic they received a zero on it for (surprise), not turning it in. It seems that giving you a free assignment so long as you turn SOMETHING in created far more chaos than good will. Apologies. That's on me. And you. But also me. But also you."

Then it went on…

The professor gave a bulleted list of instructions for what clearly sounds like a very simple, easy assignment designed to give students an opportunity to boost their grades:

  • Submit it. I've extended the deadline until tomorrow before Midnight.
  • If you do NOT turn it in before then. I'm sorry. It's a zero. No excuses at this point and frankly, I regret ever trying to make this assignment easier because it's created more problems at this point.
  • I will look at these, do not do something stupid like type 'b' or 'i did it'. I will become enraged and bitch about you for exactly 15 seconds to anyone within my proximity who will listen. I will not hold back.
  • After I receive these, I will give you full credit (pending the above prerequisites). I will then promptly print 100 copies of the assignment out, put them in a pile, light that pile on fire, and dance around the rubble as it burns. I will then put my hand on the smoldering embers so that I may feel again. Feel what, you might ask? Anything. Literally anything.
  • I will then sleep like a baby, having put this nightmare behind me.

Absolutely classic.

The professor saw the tweet his students shared after it went viral and chimed in with a response.

And he added an update on how things were going on the assignment front.

Other teachers responded to his woes, commiserating over students being handed a chance to improve their scores and simply … not doing it.

It's been a challenge during the pandemic to figure out how much to expect of any of us, hasn't it? Some leeway is definitely warranted, but are we enabling bad habits when we give too much? There are no right answers to that question. We're all winging it, trying to navigate uncharted waters and having to constantly readjust as things change.

It's exhausting. We're all exhausted. But teachers are at a level of "done" that few of us can fathom. Healthcare workers can fathom it. Anyone working with the public during the pandemic might get close. But until you've actually taught, you don't know. Teaching is hard under normal circumstances. Pandemic teaching is a whole other ballgame.

We feel you, teachers. Hang in there, and enjoy this bit that will undoubtedly feel familiar:

This article originally appeared four years ago.

From Your Site Articles
education
Pop Culture

George Harrison's elaborate prank on Phil Collins may be the funniest joke in rock history

George Harrison wasn't just a great musician, he was hilarious.

via Philippe Roos / Flickr and Wikimedia Commons

Phil Collins and George Harrison

Beatle George Harrison was pigeon-holed as the "Quiet Beatle," but the youngest member of the Fab Four had an acerbic, dry sense of humor that was as sharp as the rest of his bandmates.

He gave great performances in the musical comedy classics, "A Hard Days Night" and "Help!" while holding his own during The Beatles' notoriously anarchic press conferences. After he left the band in 1970, in addition to his musical career, he would produce the 1979 Monty Python classic, The Life of Brian.

Harrison clearly didn't lose his sense of humor for the rest of his life. Shortly before his death in 2001, he played an elaborate prank on Phil Collins that shows how the "Here Comes the Sun" singer would go the extra mile for a laugh.

gif of George Harrison making facesThe Beatles Love GIF - Find & Share on GIPHYGiphy

In 1970, Harrison was recording his first solo record (and arguably the best by a Beatle), All things Must Pass. The session for the song, "The Art of Dying," featured former Beatle Ringo Starr on drums, keyboard legend Billy Preston on keys, the famed Eric Clapton on guitar, and was produced by the notorious Phil Spector.

Harrison wanted a conga player for the session, so Ringo's chauffeur reached out to Phil Collins' manager. At the time, Collins was a relative unknown who was about to join Genesis, a band that would bring him worldwide stardom.

The 18-year-old Collins was starstruck playing on a session with two former Beatles, so he played extra hard in rehearsals, resulting in blood blisters on both hands.

gif of Phil CollinsPhil Collins 80S GIF - Find & Share on GIPHYGiphy

"Anyway, after about two hours of this, Phil Spector says, 'Okay congas, you play this time.' And I'd had my mic off, so everybody laughed, but my hands were shot," Collins told Express.

"And just after that they all disappeared—someone said they were watching TV or something—and I was told I could go." After that, Collins was relieved of his duties and told to go home. A few months later, Collins bought the massive triple album in the record shop and was devastated to learn he'd been edited out of the song.

"There must be some mistake! Collins thought. "But it's a different version of the song, and I'm not on it."

Some thirty years later, Collins bought the home of Formula One driver Jackie Stewart, a close friend of Harrison. Stewart mentioned to Collins that Harrison was remixing "All Things Must Pass" for a rerelease.

"And he said, 'You were on it, weren't you?' And I said, 'Well I was there,"' Collins recalled.

gif of George Harrison album coverGeorge Harrison Animated Album Cover GIF by uDiscoverMusic - Find & Share on GIPHYGiphy

Two days later, a tape was delivered from Harrison to Collins with a note that read: "Could this be you?" Collins continued: "I rush off and listen to it, and straight away I recognize it." It was a recording of "The Art of Dying."

"Suddenly the congas come in— too loud and just awful," said Collins. Then at the end of the take, Harrison can be heard saying, "Hey, Phil, can we try another without the conga player?" Collins was devastated, to say the least.

A while later, Stewart calls Collins and puts Harrison on the line. "'Did you get the tape?' Harrison asked. "I now realize I was fired by a Beatle," Collins sighed. The two changed the subject, but a few minutes later, Harrison couldn't stop laughing.

"Don't worry, it was a piss-take. I got Ray Cooper to play really badly and we dubbed it on," Harrison admitted. "Thought you'd like it!" So, Harrison had an entire recording session with a conga player who he asked to play poorly, just to pull one over on Collins.

gif of George Harrison smilingThe Beatles Smile GIF - Find & Share on GIPHYGiphy

If you're in the mood for another of rock's greatest pranks. The story of "The Ring" told by Beastie Boys' Adam "Ad-Rock" Horovitz shared in Beastie Boys Story is another great example of someone going to incredible lengths just for a laugh.

The story revolves around the late Beasties' rapper Adam "MCA" Yach, his bandmate Horovitz, and a very creepy ring given to him by a fan backstage at a concert. Check it out below:

Ahh, rock stars.


This article originally appeared four years ago.

From Your Site Articles
Trending Stories