[dnt404-1]

What does homelessness mean in an US context? Is it a state where you cannot even afford rent and actually sleep on the streets? I have read quite a few posts in HN referring to homelessness. For someone from a much much poorer nation, posts/comments from here suggest it is so so easy to be homeless in US than ours which brings disbelief to me.

And secondly, the author points she is "upper class"? How can upper class family or individual ever need to borrow loans and also not have assets? I only ask to gain some social context. For example, our social context, a middle class family wouldn't take education loans and would have assets, in general (even the many thousands of students who immigrate to US to study, the middle class student do not take loans to fund their education in US university - This is what always surprises me when I see posts/comments similar to this)

[henrikschroder]

> And secondly, the author points she is "upper class"? How can upper class family or individual ever need to borrow loans and also not have assets?

In the US, economic class and social class are often used interchangeably, which is wrong. Social classes are cultures, and while ever-increasing amounts of money are needed to perform the rites and shibboleths of the classes, you can still be upper class while being dirt poor. It's a set of values, not a figure in your bank account.

> For example, our social context, a middle class family wouldn't take education loans and would have assets, in general

With the way tuition costs have snowballed in the US, I would imagine that even upper-middle class families are starting to struggle to put together college funds for their kids.

[DoreenMichele]

In the US, economic class and social class are often used interchangeably, which is wrong. Social classes are cultures

Thank you for saying that.

While my late father had more money at one time than I really understood as a child, my mother's "upper class expectations" referenced in this piece are mostly not about money per se. They are rooted in the fact that her mother came from a low level noble family (my mother is a German immigrant).

They sold the title when the family fell on hard times financially, thus I'm not actually nobility myself. But I believe my grandmother was (or perhaps her parents were -- I'm not sure where the cut off is there).

My mother sewed a lot of my clothes when I was growing up. It was a cost effective means to dress me "properly" and it's only recently that I realized that my mother's ideas of "proper" attire are somewhat like the dress codes of British Royalty that you read about in gossip rags. (Not too much skin showing, no cleavage on display, don't let your bra straps show, etc.)

She didn't spend a lot of money on sewing for me, but I can't sew and I can't afford to buy the style of clothing to which I was accustomed growing up. In fact, I mostly can't even find it in the US at any price and I am so frustrated by that fact that I toy with the idea of creating my own clothing line so I can dress "properly."

[dragonwriter]

> And secondly, the author points she is "upper class"? How can upper class family or individual ever need to borrow loans and also not have assets?

Because student loans, at most points, have has extremely favorable rates at initiation (substantially below, e.g., long-run average S&P 500 returns), an upper or middle class family might well choose to take them to maximize net expected returns.

If that family then experienced financial ruin for some reason, they might be left with the debt without any longer being upper/middle class (or, an individual who becomes cutoff from the family and it's assets might be in similar straits to what would happen has the family bien ruined.)

It's also possible that the author has confused a relatively high income (or high value of non-productive assets) working or middle class existence with “upper class”; it's worth noting that the “upper class” understanding of the previous cicumstance was an epiphany reached through homelessness.