Weasley Poverty - In Perspective

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 123720


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Jocelyn Grunow <aandj at l...> wrote:

> 
> For example, the Weasleys' poverty is often discussed, but why are
> they poor?  Because Arthur's job doesn't pay well.  Why doesn't he 
> get a better paying job? ...edited... I certainly don't want to 
> suggest he should move to a job he hated, but he has 6 children to 
> support & establish - isn't this a very selfish decision?
> 
> ...edited..
> 
> Jocelyn


bboyminn:

I'm not sure where to jump into this thread, but I guess this is as
good a place as any.

First, there is a parallel thread going on about Harry/James wealth,
and whether or not James was rich, and what I say here applies as much
to James's wealth as it does to Weasley's alledged poverty. When
regarding rich or poor, the true measure is not absolute, rather it is
relative and subjective.

Researchers found that nearly everybody considers themselves Middle
Class regardless of how much money they make. The $50,000 a year
factory worker considers himself Middle Class, just as the $2,000,000
a year executive considers himself Middle Class. For most people, the
poor are the people who make significantly less than you, and the rich
are the people who make significantly more than you. 

So, let's look at just how poor the Weasleys really are. They managed
to keep 7 kids healthy and well fed. They managed to keep them in
servicable clothes. True the kids may not have had all new clothes and
may not have had the latest fashions, but they had perfectly
servicable clothing. They were not wandering the streets in rags in
the dead of winter, nor, given the fine feasts we've seen Molly lay
out, were any of her kids going hungry. In addition, Mr Weasley owns a
farm, which must, based on the description, contain several acres of
land. I estimate about 10 acres at least. 

Anyone who has grown up on a farm will tell you, that it generally
makes for healthy independant hard-working kids and strong families.
You can also attest to the fact that it's entirely possible to have a
good life, that includes not a lot of money, and a lot of hard work.
You certainly grow up with a stronger set of ethics and sense of
appreciation when compared to a lot of pampered city kids.

The Weasleys are involved parents, who provide a structured
environment, there are rules and standards of conduct in the
household, and there are certainly actions and consequences that
instill a consistent impression of right and wrong on the kids. 

In addition, they are certainly a loving family. Also, they are an
expressive family; none of the Weasleys seems afraid to speak their minds.

All of these are good things, all of these things that I have mention
are the things that you look for in a healthy functional family. 

So, are they richer or poorer than some kid who lives in a suburban
wasteland filled with nothing but houses and strip malls? A kid who
has the latest fashions, but little or no rules, order, structure, or
supervision? A kid who spends most of his time alone because his
parents are too busy working? 

Having a rich father. as Draco does, is not the same as having a rich
family life. The Weasleys certainly seem to live that rich family
life; they are outgoing, confident, intelligent, and certainly will
make productive, innovative, self-determined adults. 

So, on the question of poverty, is it better to have rich parents, or
parents who give you a rich life even if it isn't a wealthy one?

The Weasleys are not POOR poor, they are simply on the low end of the
economic scale. In my area, we would call them 'working class'. And
trust me, here in the heartland, there are alot of kids who grow up
'working class' and manager to get by just fine.

The Weasleys do not have a lot of spare money, but they are far from
poor, in the general and in the truest sense, and regardless of what
Ron says.

As far as Molly not working, she lives on a farm and raised 7 kids,
she certainly has been working. Now that most of the kids are gone,
she and Arthur can now have a well deserved break. In addition, now
that most of the kids are working, the Weasleys probably do have a
reasonable amount of money, so at this time, there isn't a strong need
for Molly to work. Also, as has already been mentioned by others, just
when the kids are finally all out of the house, Voldemort comes back
and Molly and Arthur are involved in the Order. I'm sure protecting
the wizard world from the Darkest Dark Wizard in a Century is a little
higher priority than some extra cash.

My point... the Weasley are no poorer than many many millions of other
working people living in the UK. They have no luxuries, but on the
other hand, aren't really lacking for anything either.

You hear it here first.

Steve/bboyminn