Something i've retained from my childhood in N.Y. is a conversation my mother had with her hairdresser( i was young and had to go). The hairdresser was a survivor of the nazi concentration camps, tatoo'd number and all, she said the poor did better in the camps because they were use to being hungry, going without. The rich had a harder time dealing with the harsh conditions. I know the situation for her was different then a general shtf scenario, but the question is who would be better off in a survival situation, the rich or the poor?
As with everything, those with practice will do better. The poor, or nearly so, and those more or less wealthy that have some time in the woods for practice will do alright. Paris Hilton and Charlie Sheen won't make it a month.
I'd say the "working poor". The ones living on government handouts for everything would be in just as much trouble as the paris hiltons of the world.
When i wrote this post i was'nt thinkinking of the,millions? of people in this country that on their own have decided to be poor and live off the taxpayer. As far as homeless G.I.'s, God bless'em, i'd trust'em to cover my back anytime.
Now those are the people I want on my 6! I'll take some in ( as many as I can) and give them food and shelter and a sense of purpose for as long as they like! Any that wants to move into the toolies, would have a field day on my land up north! I like this....It's a "win-win" situation!
a lot of those on welfare are there becuz they dont want to or dont think they should have to work, they have less chance of survival than the rich no ambition to fend for themselves ive offered garden space to over a dozen welfare families over the last 20 years not one has ever showed up or tried i wouldnt feel the least bit sorry about someone eatin them....lol
Whenever society experiences upheavals, it is always the poor who suffer most. The rich insulate themselves from the disturbance by retreating to enclaves and generally live the same lifestyle as before. The poor become disposessed of their homes and their livelihood; without great reserves, they often go hungry, they have less security from abuse by criminals or occupying forces or even the authorities in war-torn areas. On an individual basis- yes: If you take most everything away from two individuals, one who was rich and one who was poor- the poor guy may be more used to hardship and therefore able to adapt more easily. But just as likely, the rich person has more mental resources at his disposal, better education etc, to bounce back. And since we're speaking about the United States, even the poor person has relatively good early nutrition, is physically well-developed and able to better withstand nutritional deficiencies and disease better than some 3rd world person. But the rich person is more likely to have had regular vaccinations for a variety of diseases. And even the poor in our country mostly do not have any experience of true poverty, only relative. Few of them have ever had to manually take care of their daily needs without the comfort and convenience of mechanical assistance (not to say that even amajor upheaval in society means the lights and water go out permanently.) Not many people in this country have ever foraged for food, relatively few have grown it for themselves or chopped wood to cook it. Hardly anyone ever walks anywhere, much less carrying their household on their back. Very few have ever killed an animal for food. For these reasons I think it is impossible to tell who would fare better if our current society goes down the tubes. It depends largely upon the individual's attitude. But as a class, the rich tend to fare better in all circumstances.
If things go bad, those people and many more will be the ones that come and invade your gardens. Because they have a right to your food in their minds. If things go bad burn your garden to the ground, wait till the situation gets better and then restart your gardens. In the great depression there were lots more fames and people willing to help farm. Now theres corparate farms
im kinda infamous around here everyone knows me and how i live spent several years on the welfare board trying to make changes my best bets are loaded guns and that people know i WILL use them or moving a couple hundred miles....lol
You are right ,but smart about what . I'm sure that a farmer would be better off than a CPA , As far as I can see the resourceful person whether rich or poor will fair better . This is one of reasons why I live where I do ,so I don't have to see what happens to the city folk. JMHO
Ok a Louisiana point of view... Troy Landry vs Donald Trump... One will eat and the other will be eaten...
Personally, I would pick those who started poor and did something about it in general. Those who start out comfortable have less need to "make do" with what is there, while those who stay poor (unless by choice, which I have trouble getting my brain around) tend to lack either drive or imagination...not to mention they tend to be short on the physical tools that help a lot.
Back during the great deppression, people were looking for work, any work, where as now, people are only looking for a handout. The mental attitude has changed 180 degrees from back then, so the people would pretty much starve and quickly too. As far as the rich are concerned, it would be a toss up on weather they would survive or not. For awhile , I am sure they would, but after a few months or so, keep in mind their vast wealth would let them down as the value of 100 dollar bills would be also gone. What else would they have to barter with ? Not much really.
