[pm90]

> The author is convinced that the couple’s life sucks.

Objectively, their life does kinda suck. The woman is living in a slum and cleaning houses for a living, earning very little for a lot of exhausting labor. The man is doing little better. They have to be creative in finding places to just hang out with each other, which is really the foundation for any relationship.

This isn't a judgement call on their relative economic status; life is just more difficult for them. I didn't feel the author was looking down on them as much as pointing out the obscene difference in ease of living between the upper and lower classes.

[seestraw]

I agree with some of your points. And kudos to the journalists for exploring this topic.

However, look at the following:

“She’s the first woman from her family who makes her own money.”

To her, that might be an amazing success. Getting out of your default path and making it on your own is a big thing. Why do we need to emphasize that she can’t afford to eat at a Zomato restaurant? Is that a minimum bar for life being good?

I agree with your point that they do have a lack of freedom and a lot of societal issues. Also basic facilities. Those should obviously be called out and kudos to the journalists for this.

I’m mainly commenting on the author’s choice of contrasting it with luxury brands:

> “I don’t really want any expensive gifts, or to go to big restaurants. These things are superficial,” said Anuradha, who said she likes watching romance movies and is a big Shah Rukh Khan fan.

Kudos to her, she doesn’t consider those important, then why does the author keep calling out luxuries she doesn’t have? Malls, expensive restaurants, Zomato, Tinder.

Sadly in Indian soceity, these luxury items are given too much importance in determining your “class”. In the US (and many less rich countries), take a look at articles on poverty. They focus on problems and solutions, not on brands they can’t afford.

[dash2]

Why do you think the author is convinced these people's lives suck? I didn't get that impression from the article. It describes their life. Some might have the reaction, "oh that sucks". Others might not.

[indigo945]

Pretending that there are solutions to the problems that poverty brings is exactly the form class warfare from above takes in the US.

[archibaldJ]

In my humble opinion it all boils down to cost, and I don't mean monetary cost. I mean real cost. The cost of attention from a computational perspective.

What you described traces its roots in sensationalism, which is useful to catch people's attention (or so the piece becomes memorable for them).

As a soceity, we are always seeking to lower the cost of obtaining stimuli and qualia[1]. Combining this with the fact that people's lives become ever more complex, the cost of attention increases. Among the masses, short-attention span is now the norm.

Therefore it is important to practise mindfulness. And this is why I believe psychedelics and meditation are fundemental for us to transition into a more sensible soceity.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28020031

[nindalf]

It's a matter of perspective though. Would you rather be with the love of your life and not have much disposable income or vice versa? I've actually experienced the opposite - living in Delhi with plenty of disposable income but no way to meet people, let alone women. I just hung out at home playing video games.

Would I trade places with them? No, I was content with my life. But would these folks swap with me? Based on how happy they are with each other, I'd guess not.

[fixzVjSi0t]

Does their life really suck though? It's probably harder with fewer luxuries but happiness is not proportional how much money you have/make. You could be a rich and miserable but you could also could be poor and happy/content.

[cee_el123]

if the masses realized/felt that their life sucks - they would revolt already against the status quo

or maybe not, since upper classes will swiftly deal with it and go back to being miserable about their first world problems

[pm90]

I’ve wondered that too. In countries with massive class disparities why don’t the classes band together and revolt?

I don’t think this paints the full picture but I believe this is at least partially due to differences in regional identities even within the class. India has multiple major languages, several castes and sub-castes (reference to this has been made in the article). This makes class solidarity much harder among the lower classes, who also have difficulty in accessing good education.

The upper classes on the other hand all speak English or Hindi. They can communicate with one another. Their easier access to education and frequent contact with people from other regions of the country makes them care less about those divisions. There is much more class solidarity in the upper classes.

[autoexec]

> In countries with massive class disparities why don’t the classes band together and revolt?

A lot of factors come into play there. Protesting and political engagement require a lot of time and energy. Many of the poorest people need to spend huge amounts of both just to survive to day to day.

Their health is often poor, they may not be as well educated, they're exhausted from back-breaking physical labor and from living in constant stress. It'd seem hard to expect people in that situation to organize a grassroots movement let alone an army.

Even if someone had the time, the energy, the physical and mental well-being to fight for change, and they could do all the work involved in determining exactly who it is that needs overthrowing, how to best set about doing that, and what should be done if they somehow succeed, they then still have to convince others who are lost in their own struggles for survival to abandon what little they've managed to secure for themselves and join them.

That's already a lot of overcome and doesn't even get into the countless ways people are conditioned to feel helpless, powerless, inadequate, responsible for their own suffering, or divided and intentionally pitted against each other or at least some "other" who can be blamed for their problems.

Then of course, even if they do manage to overcome all of that, they're still up against an enemy with vast amounts of resources and power. The only thing they've got going for them are their numbers and that they don't have all that much to lose.

It's amazing to me that revolts happen at all really.

It'd probably go a lot easier if it didn't start from the bottom. Get the declining middle classes involved or some sympathetic members of the upper class and it's another story entirely.

[ptr2voidStar]

Very well said, and a sobering reality of the world - whenever and wherever "the few" hold the majority to ransom in a grotesque asymmetric power equilibrium.

Unfortunately, the same dynamic applies at the national/international level and can often be seen in attitudes between "developed" and "developing" nations.

[EvilEy3]

Not kinda. It sucks.