Justin Annas Dr. Arnold LBST 2215 2/16/14 Murray vs.

Ehrenreich In my opinion poverty is not being able to afford the absolute bare essentials for life. For example, if a family cannot afford food, water, and shelter then I would certainly consider them to be in poverty. This definition is obviously one that can change from person to person depending on what narratives they have been told throughout their lives, but in my case, unless you cannot afford the essentials then you are not in poverty, but you are rather in the lower-class economic field. As Charles Murray said in his article, For those who have never been poor and never known any people who were once poor, it is difficult to treat poverty as something other than a mystery. This quote from Murrays article Whats So Bad About Being Poor? sort of answers the question of how poverty is different in wealthier nations than it is in poorer nations. According to Murray people in wealthier countries are less likely to truly understand poverty because they are so far removed from it, but poorer countries on the other hand would be much more familiar and therefore understanding of the problem that is poverty. In Murrays article he talks mainly about the fact that even though many people in America consider themselves to be living in poverty, if they would just look to the western countries as he puts it then they would see that poverty in America would be considered subsistence elsewhere. Murray also talks about these western countries subsistence citizens being happy with their lives. Murray seems to wonder why people in America cant be happy

just because they are poor. Murray first seems to think that most people in America are not in fact in poverty and secondly that they should be happy about that economic standing. Ehrenreich's point of view varies greatly from that of Murrays, this is due in part to the fact that Ehrenreich put herself directly into the shoes of these impoverished people. Throughout Ehrenreichs experience, she realizes that even with a job and some initial startup money it will be unable to afford her rent, much less food. As I stated in my first paragraph, my definition of poverty is someone who cannot afford the essientials for life, food, water, and shelter. It seems obvious to me that the main difference between Ehrenreich and Murray is their view of poverty and what kind of an effect it has on those involved. It seems to me that neither of the writers seem to take the others viewpoint into account which gives their articles a distinct skew towards the left and the right in Ehrenreichs and Murrays articles respectively. It seems to me that Murray is probably farther off from the actual truth with his article just because he seems so far removed from poverty. However Ehrenreichs article also seems to be skewed because there are many different situations in which those in poverty are living, and although I greatly doubt many do it is possible that some of those situations lend themselves to the point of Murrays article.