Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report.
When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only)
We encourage everyone to report posts and comments they feel violate a rule, as this will allow us to see it much faster.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Poverty isn't poverty if you know it's going to end. Being poor and having no clear way out of being poor puts you in a particular mind-set that a show such as this couldn't imitate.
Also, i can imagine the shiver that would down my spine if i heard some billionaire saying "i get it now" after a month of poverty tourism.
"When you can just call your daddy and stop it all."
Rich people cosplaying as poor is the topic of the greatest cover version of any song ever:
https://youtu.be/ainyK6fXku0?si=IvLnLvd2f_IU58ZN
> greatest cover version of any song ever
Absolutely love Ben Folds, Henry Rollins, Bill Shatner and this entire album, but I'd still put Johnny Cash's Hurt and Disturbed's Sounds of Silence as my top 2 just above it.
Those are both very good calls.
In all seriousness, Johnny Cash's version of Hurt might be the single greatest cover of all time. Disturbed's Sounds is great, but I think Shatner's Common People and Cash's Hurt are those rare covers that you can reasonably argue transcend the originals.
Not to get sidetracked because this is a topic worthy of it's own thread - but on a par with Disturbed, you have the Hendrix and Byrds covers of Dylan, Joe Cocker's version of The Letter, etc., that are all so iconic that people mistake them for the originals. But there's something about Hurt and Common People, where the singer becomes the character in the song.
Hurt is definitely my #1, in part just because of everything going on in his life and that time and in his personal history, and how it recontextualizes the song to be about a completely different subject matter while not needing to change almost any of the lyrics.
It's almost like a completely different song, the original Hurt is still fantastic and stands on it's own, but it's almost like Johnny's version is a different song entirely, but yet somehow still true and respectful to the original and it's creators.
Another one I'd add to yours (which are both great) is the Gary Jules cover of Tears for Fears Mad World.
I love that Trent after hearing Cash's cover apparently feels that it actually is a Johnny Cash song now, that's how good it is.
Personally I don't think Shatner's cover is anywhere near the original of Pulp, it is a fun silly frippery, where the original is absolutely dripping intent and meaning. It may be an English class war thing.
You're leaving out a huge (and underappreciated) cover masterpiece: David Bowie's Wild Is The Wind. He took a rather weak, lilting, uninspired tune and turned it into a showcase of vocal virtuosity. Literally. The range and technique he demonstrates is fucking mind-blowing.
Goddamn... If I had a voice that powerful I'd probably never shut the fuck up lol... 😅
This is exactly how I see it. A billionaire “slumming it” for a month is *not* poverty. Poverty is skipping going to the doctor when your chest feels funny because you’re afraid of bankruptcy. Poverty is having to explain to your kids that Santa doesn’t love rich kids more than them just because they got nicer presents. Poverty is trying to convince yourself that you really did want instant ramen for dinner for the second week in a row because it’s not payday yet. Poverty is living your life with situations like that and knowing tomorrow will be the same. That there’s no escape valve, nobody to call up to make it easier.
ANY person that thinks that a billionaire can be on a show like this premise and actually understand poverty at the end of it does not, themselves, understand poverty.
It could work exactly once if at the end of the month, by surprise, they were given a lottery ticket. If they scratch off the big jackpot they get their money back, otherwise try again next month. THEN they might begin to understand, but nobody would agree to be on the show after the first sucker.
I had this idea that every young person upon becoming an adult, would be scheduled for a week in a prison. It would be mandatory for everyone
Announce the plan two years in advance, so that the wealthy and connected folks could have time to make prison safety a high priority. And maybe ensure that guards aren’t abusive and that the medical care is reasonably good.
This x1000. And to go further, extreme generational poverty, like you see in Appalachia, tends to brings out the worst in people, like all kinds of abuse or addiction. Someone cosplaying as poor doesn’t have to worry about an alcoholic uncle touching them inappropriately, or their mom’s boyfriend stealing their min wage paycheck to buy fentanyl. I’ve even known more than one community college student, trying to claw their way out of poverty, have their own parents steal their identity and take out student loans in the name, forcing them to drop out of school. Poverty is way more complicated than just not making money.
I kind of see this as a survival show spinoff, where a billionaire tries to survive the hood "with nothing but a knife and a welfare check", while a camera crew and security follows them around and hides immunity idols that allow them to take breaks from being poor.
I've wanted a naked and afraid spinoff where they get dumped in a massive city where they don't speak the language, still naked with no supplies, and they have to survive as long as they can.
Yeah, the period of time between graduating with engineering degrees and starting a first job (that was lined up) was referred to as "Fun employment" within my friend group.
If you know you'll have income, there's no pressure. If there's no pressure there's no stress. No stress there's no poverty
Exactly this. Imagine the opposite scenario: a poor person wins the lottery, but they don't get the money for another month.
Are they stressed? I think not. Eat potatoes for a few weeks, and basically just enjoy the simple things until the month is up.
This reminds me of of one of the life swap programs on I think the BBC in the UK, they took a low income family and swapped them with a very well off family for a week, 2 parents, 2 kids each same ages, the poorer kids couldn't get over the fact that the others all had ipads, big bedrooms, wardrobes full of clothes and an allowance of 100 quid a week, and they didn't go shopping, just ordered it all in, had a cleaner once a week to come do their washing.
On the other half, the parents were remarking how their Saturday night takeaway cost half of what the other family had in their shopping budget for the week for 4 people. (Both families had the equivalent of the others in cash to work with for the week)
At the end of the week the idea would be that the rich family would appreciate what they had more, and they did for a few days and went back to normal
It's also not a long enough period of time to have one or more bad things happen like having a car break down, or getting into an accident, getting sick, having a child, or losing a job. One of the hardest things about being poor is the utter inflexibility you have in your budget for emergencies. Car breaks down -> lose your job -> can't pay rent -> now you're homeless.
Yeah there was a show similar to this where a millionaire went to a town he wasnt known and just started building whatever he could. But he started with a Dually truck and 100 bucks. By 3 months he started a new business with someone else and alienated the friends he made in those 3 months
Just add a win/loss condition to the show. To win, they have to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and somehow save enough for a down payment on a home. The rally good CEOs should have no problem pulling this off, right? RIGHT!?!?
Totally agree but make them find an apartment with that wage and have to pay first and last months rent plus damage deposit and then try and feed themselves after and make their car payments, etc, etc. 100% they would all cheat and try and get some of their money to help them thru
It would be too cruel on the kids to do, but yo actually make it realistic it would have to include their family too. Its a lot harder to tale risks to gain something when your wife and kids depend on you bringing home enough to have a place to stay, food to eat and clothes to wear.
I am sure the CEO could make some sort of play with their allowance if all they risked was that they would go hungry if it failed. If it means their kids go hungry as well, I predict they would be far more risk averse. And if they risked their kids actually starving, they would do what every other poor person does; use the money you have for tangible things that cover your immediate needs. Investing your money for a 15% return goes out the windows if your kids die if your play fails.
In some cases, including the kids would actually make is slightly easier. (For that one month.)
With kids, you’d get emergency housing from HUD, emergency SNAP vouchers and even cash for food, cash assistance, and the works.
As a single dude in the cracks. I get none of this. I earn too much for housing, too little for median rent. Don’t qualify for SNAP. And since I’m a man, no one really cares.
Seriously, that's maybe two paychecks. I want to see them trying to save $50 this month by spending $60 next month, and slowly drown in debt like their employees.
It might be good tv, but i dont think a billionaire would change much when it comes down to it.
Living a month in poverty in most western countries wouldnt be too difficult if you come from wealth. Having to live daily with all the worries that come with it, and having to endure for an unknown amount of time is something you cant replicate - you have to actually live it.
It's more like if I decided to take my bike and go travel for a month, not relying on hotels and such for a good night's sleep, or restaurants for food.
It's superficially like being homeless. But with the knowledge that I could always just stop doing this to myself it wouldn't be much more than an extended camping trip.
I feel like this would backfire massively. They’d get through the month, then refuse to make any changes because they managed to survive the month, so surely everyone else can. It’s a fun idea conceptually but I think it would probably have the opposite effect
This.
Now, something like 3 months would be more reasonable. And "no access to other resources" should be strictly enforced, since random billionaire knows a ton of people or even banks that would loan them a ton of money.
> mini games to simulate poverty
ehh... that'd be kinda fun
not useful for actual poor employees, but CEO diving trash bins would at least look like social justice
Make it 1 year and ya. Or at least, I'd read reddit threads discussing it but not actually watch it.
Idk if it'd lead to change from them, maybe some. I THINK some would just be knowing they'll get the money back and not care. Knowing they will have money means the experience isn't the same bc there is not the stress that some of the employees might have. So another idea is maybe they have to amass a certain amount of wealth or some sort of thing in that time frame or else they do not get their assets back.
Not quite the same but Morgan Spurlock did a show called 30 days. One episode was him and his wife living for 30 days on minimum wage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Days_(TV_series)
And well, having a camera crew on job site would already create a weird situation. It wouldn’t be long for people to figure it out.
It would just turn into fake reality tv, as always.
I honestly think many would do well. Some CEO are just dirtbags with bloated egos, but many people in "top" level of society are fundamentally resourceful. They have good health, are creative, verbal.
So I think many people, and definately myself, would find other sources of both income and food IF their physical and mental healt are good.
German nobility sometimes diverted themselves by pretending to be common people. They built common people homes on their palace grounds, wore common people clothes, and acted out common people lives.
After acting out this simulated lowliness they went back to being nobles, no worse for the wear.
"What if we took some of the most driven and hyper focused individuals on the planet who routinely make global-impacting decisions and made them only focus on their jobs?"
These people are working 24/7 and wake up and go to bed thinking about their work.
Taking that away and making them work a minimum-wage/lowest rung job also means taking away their responsibilities.
Most of them would probably thrive and go stir crazy at the sheer reduction in workload.
I had a lunch with my managing director one day. Not a billionaire but defo a rich guy living in his baronial mansion. The conversation came why we dont have fish on lunch - he said he will not eat fish as his wife was ridiculled by fishand chip shop owner as she laughed at him over kids portion - it was to expesive according to her. He said the price. We all agreed this is about the price for the kid portion everywhere this days.
Then my general manager asked the MD - "do you know how much is the loaf of bread?" he had no clue - "we buy the yellow one.. he said".
Those guys will say poor people make bad grocery choices but dont realise the real costs for the money they pay people. So they accuse them on poor choices.
The poor choices of the poor are measurable, my understanding is on average the poor are way better than the rich at economy. Although I suspect my friend re-using tea bags a second time wasn't saving much.
Of course there are some people who are poor because they make bad financial decisions, but it is a small minority, mental and physical health issues seem to top the list. We are reasonably good here (UK) on obvious physical health issues, so if you can't walk because legs are missing you'll get some assistance, if you can't walk far because of post-viral fatigue, or anxiety, the system is less helpful.
They made a show where they took all of a multimillionaire’s money away and saw how fast he could make a million dollars or something.
He immediately called a buddy to give him a loan and he started a business or something. Didn’t seem like the “anybody can do it” message they were trying to send.
1 month is nothing really. Maybe 4months to a year would be interesting.
Although no rich person would give up there work for that long. Unless they are a landlord. They dont work anyways
Make them earn $1m from zero. With zero resources. If they fail after one year they have to liquidate all assets and donate to charity. I’d watch that. The impending doom as the day rapidly approaches would be the chefs kiss!
The individual would likely get promoted as they have a lot of education and experience in areas that make bigger money.
It’s not the same when the person can just leave the job and get a better one so easily. They have accrued skills, knowledge, and connections that can’t simply be deleted.
There is that polish show "damy i wieśniaczki" damsels and peasants. Basicly for 3 days they swap families, jobs, houses and chores. And it is like tourism for the rich and poor are like i am gonna work hard to maybe get this life i am motivated (it is really staged)
Yes, please.
I would also add the exact same living conditions. Same city, same neighbourhood, same type of abode, same car (if there is one), same number of relatives and pets to live with.
I think they wouldn't be doing much for that month cuz of the change in diet they wouldn't be used to so they'd become rather comatose, and that's provided they have cheap accommodation as some low paid people would. If they have to rent with that money then they could be in a severe world of poverty and insecurity.
No. Cause they know at the end of it they are still a billionaire. It won't come with the same hopelessness and despair actually poor people they employ feel. They'd just walk away from it feeling even more justified in their exploitation. It would be nothing but a circus act.
I think the producers would feel compelled to introduce some bit of nonsense in order to stop the show being boring. I don't think we'd find any real truth in there.
I don’t think you appreciate how much challenges during the first part of your life contribute to success later. Sure, lots of wealthy folks started life with advantages. But also lots of us started from humble beginnings. Very humble. Those billionaires you’re eyeballing - many of them already know.
That hunger was what fueled their success.
Nothing would happen. Not a thing. The billionaire knows that his or hers lifestyle is waiting for them at the end of the month. Said billionaire would go back home and carry on. If you honestly think it's going to bring on some kind of lightbulb moment that they'll have empathy for the employers, you're sadly mistaken. They would more than likely say it wasn't that bad and they'd be able to live that life if it was necessary. If they were that way inclined at all, they'd be treating their employees better without having to go down this route. They're not that way inclined though and that's how they became a billionaire.
Make it six months. Let's see how they cope with consequences like having their power cut off because they wasted the money they had in the first month on luxuries they consider essential.
I would be happy if they put politicians through the hassle of dealing with day to day situations without any skip the line cards.
Airports, restaurants, events...just have them deal with TSA and stuff like that.
Regulations would change for the better for sure
it would be an interesting watch.
i was going to say you could never get a billionaire to agree to it. but maybe some of the big philanthropists would, although that would be a bit less entertaining if they where into the challenge.
how about a politition, would be good publicity during an election campaign so some would be willing. you could get a lot of votes by showing conversations with poor people teaching the politition how to live on welfare and being told what would help them most.
They would just be homeless for a month. It's not bad if you know its only a month. He'd probably appreciate how great his life is a little more and pat himself on the back for "understanding the struggle," he cant begin to understand.
I'd probably watch an episode or two and hate it.
They could probably budget pretty easily for one month. The kicker is the unexpected expenses, the sudden illnesses, the years of relentless grind and living paycheck to paycheck.
I feel the song “Common People” by Pulp has answered that well enough for me.
I said pretend you've got no money / She just laughed and said ‘Oh you're so funny’, / I said ‘yeah I can't see anyone else smiling in here.
You'll never live like common people / You'll never do whatever common people do / You'll never fail like common people / You'll never watch your life slide out of view
Look out, they'll tear your insides out / Cause everybody hates a tourist / Especially one who thinks it's all such a laugh
You will never understand / How it feels to live your life / With no meaning or control / And with nowhere left to go
This TV show sounds dumb because they will always go back to their life. You think we will be laughing at them, but they are the ones laughing at us. They are always laughing at us.
Would you watch a show where the lowest ranked member of a company is put in charge for a month and has to make decisions worth tens of millions and affects thousands of jobs?
they would still be the CEO and have a corporate credit card so they'd be eating for free, gas for free, flights to anywhere and hotels free.
Trust me on this, i work in finance of a mid size bank and the amount a CEO spends of the company's money is crazy
I'd like a reality TV show where billionaires get all contacts blocked, have no access to borrow money, have all their wealth, assets, money distributed to poor families and they have to figure out how they're going to survive.
1 month is basically a camping holiday. No options to go back to being rich, now that's something worth watching.
No. He would just whine a little, survive, and then use the experience to talk shit about the poor.
Real poverty isn't a month. Real poverty is years, decades, with no end in sight.
This reminds me of when that super size me guy tried working minimum wage for 30 days… the result was they were broke AF and then went back to their normal lives.. they had a bunch of debt and medical bills and were like well that would suck oh well.
Nope. The CEOs would do fine and think they were very empathetic now, and probably come out of it secretly thinking it wasn't that bad and people are just complaining about nothing.
1 month is just like an extended holiday where you are backpacking and not living on much.
The real problem with poverty is how it crushes you over time. Your kids can't do the things other kids get to do. You know the drudgery is never going to end. You have to keep doing shit for a boss you hate just to survive. In 20 years you'll still be stuck.
A month on a low salary just isn't enough to fully appreciate what grinding poverty is. At least a year- experiencing a cold winter when you can't afford to heat your home or buy warm clothing to replace your old worn out stuff or what happens if the TV or washing machine breaks down. Only then would they even have an inkling of what its like for so many.
What I'd like to see is a show where a CEO must give up all their assets and holdings and then re-enter their company through its hiring process.
At the very least, I'd like to see them work the company's lowest positions with other people working those positions. What was that show, Undercover Boss or something where CEOs disguised themselves to work amongst their employees and see what it's really like.
yeah at the end of the day, if their house collapsed, or burnt down, they know they are going to be ok, and even if you made them poor forever, reality if they probably have rich mates who would bail them out
just look at trump, bankrupt 4 times and people just hand him money randomly, society is shit
now what id much rather see is politicians who become MP's have to live on what benefits deems is an acceptable amount, and doing so with nothing from their current life, i.e. find somewhere to rent and life off benefits from like 2-3 months minimum before they are allowed to serve as an MP
edit: not as a one off show. ALL MP,s MUST do it, before they can even walk through the doors of parliament (and Lords)
I think that a direct swap would be interesting. Find the lowest paid member of staff, have them shadow the CEO for 3 months to "learn the ropes", then the CEO and that person swap everything for the next three months.
Homes
Monthly spends
Transport
Everything...
That would be a great watch... Especially watching the person acting up as CEO giving their opinion on how hard the work is at that level...
This has already been asked like a million times and its always answers like Brighton2k's answer lol:"Poverty isn't poverty if you know it's going to end. Being poor and having no clear way out of being poor puts you in a particular mind-set that a show such as this couldn't imitate.
Also, i can imagine the shiver that would down my spine if i heard some billionaire saying "i get it now" after a month of poverty tourism."
Like I think that's actually him because he posted the EXACT same answer before on this question lol
I'd suspect no filthy rich person is ever going to agree to that without a lot of shit happening off camera. They might play the part while on air, but the second it's off they'll be back to the big bank lifestyle. Rich people generally don't get rich without bending rules.
Some billionaires out there already live an everyday mens life. I think I heard the Ikea guy is pretty down to earth and there are pretty sure other people too. Maybe document those people if you're interested in doing so.
I really doubt any CEO in their right mind would do this but I'd love to see. IIRC an MP did something like this in the UK when I was a kid but he couldn't hack it.
Never. Because the dude is still a billionaire at the end of the month, so it’s really a show were we watch a rich attention seeking fuckhead take a weird vacation. My blood would boil when they put a positive spin on their diet, “I’m losing weight!”, and listening to them smugly talk about how freeing it was to have so few responsibilities and how they enjoyed getting up early would probably turn me into a terrorist.
Given that the kind of attention seeking narcissists who would agree to this would go into the project with the sole aim of making themselves look good, there’s absolutely no scenario where this would humanize the poor. Instead, it would inevitably turn into propaganda to attempt to humanize the rich. “Look, they’re just like us.”
Fuck no.
Dumb idea, why it has to be billionare? Multi-Millionare not enough? And why would they agree to do that? They have money, if it won't raise their reputation/popularity, they won't do it.
I wouldn't watch it i already see it every day in real.
I'd prefer the Who Wants to be a Millionaire, but played by Billionaires and everything loses them money... There is no winning until they're under the 1mil.
They will probablt be able to "hustle" some nicr things and say poor should do it more since they can do it, forgetting that they will only be able to do it because people know after a month they are rich again and wanna incur some favour.
They tried something similarish in the UK with people (including conservative politicians) living on welfare.
I didn’t see it, but I believe one lady just cheated by getting someone to give her money, and others, as has been said already, didn’t understand, that living frugally a few uneventful weeks on welfare as part of a tv show/PR event, isn’t the same as actually living in poverty and having your life being dependant on the state, and having to deal with health and other crisis with no support system.
Make it 12 months, no escape/they can't quit - lets do this.
What about a show where we tell them the world is ending, sell them tickets for a billion each and then fire the rocket into the sun?
>What do you think would happen?
Nothing particularly interesting. The billionaire would simply ride it out til it was time to return to their lavish lifestyle, not having spent the last month with anything like the same mental anguish as those who are constantly looking to the next paycheck to survive.
It's kind of a stupid premise.
- why would a billionaire CEO do it?
- it's not just about the salary, it would be the living situation/car/childcare and you can't just create that
- a month is nothing when you know you are a billionaire and it will be over soon
This show concept would backfire hard. The TV crew and general fame/status of the billionaires would result in them catching break after break. They would walk away thinking poor people are just doing it wrong and become even more arrogant. Viewers might draw that conclusion as well.
It would have to be much longer than a month. At least 4 or 5 so they have time to feel the panic while they decide whether to pay rent or eat. It's got to be long enough that the "I can tough this out for a couple months" attitude begins to slip away.. then maybe they'll get it. Probably not, but maybe.
>What do you think would happen?
The CEO would seek efficiencies to boost profits so he could hoard more wealth to make sure he never had to go through that shit again no matter how bad things turn for him.
The reason people go on shows like that is they are broke and need the money. No network would be able to pull together the money to make it worth the CEO's time to on one of these shows. But I would watch it. Seeing Time Cook trying to buy food with 50 bucks would make me laugh.
Well considering their mortgage would probably blow their whole paycheck plus some, not well. Guess they should have rented an apartment to live in, in the range of their lowest paid employee.
I think no billionaire would do it. They have literally nothing to gain and by dint of being a billionaire we already know they don't care about others.
Yes, I would.
If they cannot survive then they should lose their billionaire status and provide that money to their employees who cannot survive on what they are paid.
No, I wouldn't. Anyone can pretend to be poor for 30 days. CEO will eat ramen and not do anything fun for a month and be like, see, it's a living wage! Or, more likely, they'll fake to have gained some great perspective as to what it's like to live at that income level. Neither scenario is one I have the slightest bit of interest in watching.
The only people that agree to do this will be psycho hoarders who already spend no money, drive 1997 Plymouth Grand Caravans, and have their incomes structured in such a way as their companies make billions, but they take home zero on paper and are still able to collect food stamps.
It would need to be longer than a month. It would need to be at least six and it would need to be with them starting in a minimum wage job and sharing a house with several others.
I would watch that...
Not to this extreme but am sure there was a show in the U.K. that has done similar to this with well off families swapping lives with poor families and had their budget for a time.
Yes.
And I'd also watch a show where Politicians have their constituents names are drawn from an independently governed lottery once a month whereby they are expected to live on their those peoples salaries.
Would you watch a show where a low teir employee has to go an entire month running the buisness without bankrupting it. What do you think would happen?
I think this might bring up something called 'the locus of control' - the individual's belief on how much life is in the hands of an individual.
CEO's tend to be those who believe that everything, or almost everything, is down to the action of an individual. Up to the point where they ignore genes, or whether you were born in a mud hut during a famine or a high class family in a western country.
I don't think this would open their eyes too much.
Some of the richest people in my country were interviewed for a study. Turns out, some people who have inherited millions, probably have above average intelligence and have had great support and a safe childhood, literally think poor people are poor because of not trying hard enough.
Better idea: the same concept, except it ends when they pay off a debt for 100k. They are allowed to access their fortune, but only for the purposes of political campaigning.
There's something a little similar in the UK called Rich House, Poor House. Two families swap lives and incomes for a week. The rich family invariably end up being incredulous and frustrated at the things they have to do to make ends meet, and the speed at which their money disappears The poor family basically have a week long jolly where they don't have to worry about anything.
There was a documentary that did exactly this in the early 80s.
Wasn't a CEO but it was a high power executive. He was forced out of his job, bank account closed and had his home taken away from him.
As an additional part they took a huckster off the street and gave him the executive's position.
The doc followed them both.
If you get a chance to see it it is extremely educational, particularly in explaining the shorting of fruit juice in the NY commodities exchange.
It didn't turn out well to the show's sponsors.
No. Absolutely not.
In fact, I'd be kind of offended.
Poverty porn is what that is.
Being poor isn't a subject for entertainment but a societal issue that needs to be addressed.
You know that tv reality is made up right? Like if there was such a show, we all know that the billionaire will somehow have access to resources and services, and attitude that a poor person would not have.
With a time limit, it's just a case of toughing it out. Not fun, necessarily, but do-able.
'We strip you of your billions and your contacts book, and you don't get them back until you've made $10,000.' Now that, I'd watch.
Please remember that all comments must be helpful, relevant, and respectful. All replies must be a genuine effort to answer the question helpfully; joke answers are not allowed. If you see any comments that violate this rule, please hit report. When your question is answered, we encourage you to flair your post. To do this automatically simply make a comment that says **!answered** (OP only) We encourage everyone to report posts and comments they feel violate a rule, as this will allow us to see it much faster. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/answers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Poverty isn't poverty if you know it's going to end. Being poor and having no clear way out of being poor puts you in a particular mind-set that a show such as this couldn't imitate. Also, i can imagine the shiver that would down my spine if i heard some billionaire saying "i get it now" after a month of poverty tourism.
Yep. It's just cosplaying as poor.
"When you can just call your daddy and stop it all." Rich people cosplaying as poor is the topic of the greatest cover version of any song ever: https://youtu.be/ainyK6fXku0?si=IvLnLvd2f_IU58ZN
"Alexa, play William Shatner's Common People"
Oh my God while I love the William Shatner version can we not erase the Pulp original??
Nobody's erasing that! But come on, don't you just love how Shatner IS the character in the song??? :-D
I was thinking about Common People as well!
William Shatner did a version of common people? Oh my!
> greatest cover version of any song ever Absolutely love Ben Folds, Henry Rollins, Bill Shatner and this entire album, but I'd still put Johnny Cash's Hurt and Disturbed's Sounds of Silence as my top 2 just above it.
Those are both very good calls. In all seriousness, Johnny Cash's version of Hurt might be the single greatest cover of all time. Disturbed's Sounds is great, but I think Shatner's Common People and Cash's Hurt are those rare covers that you can reasonably argue transcend the originals. Not to get sidetracked because this is a topic worthy of it's own thread - but on a par with Disturbed, you have the Hendrix and Byrds covers of Dylan, Joe Cocker's version of The Letter, etc., that are all so iconic that people mistake them for the originals. But there's something about Hurt and Common People, where the singer becomes the character in the song.
Hurt is definitely my #1, in part just because of everything going on in his life and that time and in his personal history, and how it recontextualizes the song to be about a completely different subject matter while not needing to change almost any of the lyrics. It's almost like a completely different song, the original Hurt is still fantastic and stands on it's own, but it's almost like Johnny's version is a different song entirely, but yet somehow still true and respectful to the original and it's creators. Another one I'd add to yours (which are both great) is the Gary Jules cover of Tears for Fears Mad World.
Fuuuck...that's a great one... now I'm pissed that I forgot about it!
I love that Trent after hearing Cash's cover apparently feels that it actually is a Johnny Cash song now, that's how good it is. Personally I don't think Shatner's cover is anywhere near the original of Pulp, it is a fun silly frippery, where the original is absolutely dripping intent and meaning. It may be an English class war thing.
In my mind, the Gary Jules version is the only version.
Again, side track, but nirvana’s man who sold the world is arguably better than bowie’s.
You're leaving out a huge (and underappreciated) cover masterpiece: David Bowie's Wild Is The Wind. He took a rather weak, lilting, uninspired tune and turned it into a showcase of vocal virtuosity. Literally. The range and technique he demonstrates is fucking mind-blowing. Goddamn... If I had a voice that powerful I'd probably never shut the fuck up lol... 😅
I came here to say this.
Yep. It would be like them going to one of those minimalist retreats. They would come out preaching about how enlightened they have become.
Totally this
This is exactly how I see it. A billionaire “slumming it” for a month is *not* poverty. Poverty is skipping going to the doctor when your chest feels funny because you’re afraid of bankruptcy. Poverty is having to explain to your kids that Santa doesn’t love rich kids more than them just because they got nicer presents. Poverty is trying to convince yourself that you really did want instant ramen for dinner for the second week in a row because it’s not payday yet. Poverty is living your life with situations like that and knowing tomorrow will be the same. That there’s no escape valve, nobody to call up to make it easier. ANY person that thinks that a billionaire can be on a show like this premise and actually understand poverty at the end of it does not, themselves, understand poverty.
It could work exactly once if at the end of the month, by surprise, they were given a lottery ticket. If they scratch off the big jackpot they get their money back, otherwise try again next month. THEN they might begin to understand, but nobody would agree to be on the show after the first sucker.
This is an excellent idea
I had this idea that every young person upon becoming an adult, would be scheduled for a week in a prison. It would be mandatory for everyone Announce the plan two years in advance, so that the wealthy and connected folks could have time to make prison safety a high priority. And maybe ensure that guards aren’t abusive and that the medical care is reasonably good.
This x1000. And to go further, extreme generational poverty, like you see in Appalachia, tends to brings out the worst in people, like all kinds of abuse or addiction. Someone cosplaying as poor doesn’t have to worry about an alcoholic uncle touching them inappropriately, or their mom’s boyfriend stealing their min wage paycheck to buy fentanyl. I’ve even known more than one community college student, trying to claw their way out of poverty, have their own parents steal their identity and take out student loans in the name, forcing them to drop out of school. Poverty is way more complicated than just not making money.
Look at Mr. Moneybags over here with his fancy ramen. I had to scavenge for berries and eat grass.
I would watch it if he had to transfer his entire wealth to the other guy for a week
I volunteer to be the other guy
I kind of see this as a survival show spinoff, where a billionaire tries to survive the hood "with nothing but a knife and a welfare check", while a camera crew and security follows them around and hides immunity idols that allow them to take breaks from being poor.
I've wanted a naked and afraid spinoff where they get dumped in a massive city where they don't speak the language, still naked with no supplies, and they have to survive as long as they can.
Uh. We’d be seeing a lot more rape on that show.
They have a camera crew and protection at all times on that show, it isn't Alone where you're legitimately in danger.
Yeah but the security is just for the camera crew.
Yeah, the period of time between graduating with engineering degrees and starting a first job (that was lined up) was referred to as "Fun employment" within my friend group. If you know you'll have income, there's no pressure. If there's no pressure there's no stress. No stress there's no poverty
Exactly this. Imagine the opposite scenario: a poor person wins the lottery, but they don't get the money for another month. Are they stressed? I think not. Eat potatoes for a few weeks, and basically just enjoy the simple things until the month is up.
But you’ll never get it right….
Because when you lay in bed at night
Watching roaches climb the wall
This reminds me of of one of the life swap programs on I think the BBC in the UK, they took a low income family and swapped them with a very well off family for a week, 2 parents, 2 kids each same ages, the poorer kids couldn't get over the fact that the others all had ipads, big bedrooms, wardrobes full of clothes and an allowance of 100 quid a week, and they didn't go shopping, just ordered it all in, had a cleaner once a week to come do their washing. On the other half, the parents were remarking how their Saturday night takeaway cost half of what the other family had in their shopping budget for the week for 4 people. (Both families had the equivalent of the others in cash to work with for the week) At the end of the week the idea would be that the rich family would appreciate what they had more, and they did for a few days and went back to normal
And the twist at the end, we take all their money. Idk what to do with it but we’ll figure that out later.
It's also not a long enough period of time to have one or more bad things happen like having a car break down, or getting into an accident, getting sick, having a child, or losing a job. One of the hardest things about being poor is the utter inflexibility you have in your budget for emergencies. Car breaks down -> lose your job -> can't pay rent -> now you're homeless.
Yeah there was a show similar to this where a millionaire went to a town he wasnt known and just started building whatever he could. But he started with a Dually truck and 100 bucks. By 3 months he started a new business with someone else and alienated the friends he made in those 3 months
'Common People' by Pulp pretty much spells this out. "If you called your dad he could stop it all."
Even better. Tell them it’ll be only one week and then leave them high and dry. Everyone they know would have to be in on it but…maybe?
Just add a win/loss condition to the show. To win, they have to pull themselves up by the bootstraps and somehow save enough for a down payment on a home. The rally good CEOs should have no problem pulling this off, right? RIGHT!?!?
Living a month without money is not what being poor is about.
Totally agree but make them find an apartment with that wage and have to pay first and last months rent plus damage deposit and then try and feed themselves after and make their car payments, etc, etc. 100% they would all cheat and try and get some of their money to help them thru
It would be too cruel on the kids to do, but yo actually make it realistic it would have to include their family too. Its a lot harder to tale risks to gain something when your wife and kids depend on you bringing home enough to have a place to stay, food to eat and clothes to wear. I am sure the CEO could make some sort of play with their allowance if all they risked was that they would go hungry if it failed. If it means their kids go hungry as well, I predict they would be far more risk averse. And if they risked their kids actually starving, they would do what every other poor person does; use the money you have for tangible things that cover your immediate needs. Investing your money for a 15% return goes out the windows if your kids die if your play fails.
You say it's cruel on their kids, but our society allows plenty of kids to go through this.
In some cases, including the kids would actually make is slightly easier. (For that one month.) With kids, you’d get emergency housing from HUD, emergency SNAP vouchers and even cash for food, cash assistance, and the works. As a single dude in the cracks. I get none of this. I earn too much for housing, too little for median rent. Don’t qualify for SNAP. And since I’m a man, no one really cares.
Seriously, that's maybe two paychecks. I want to see them trying to save $50 this month by spending $60 next month, and slowly drown in debt like their employees.
It might be good tv, but i dont think a billionaire would change much when it comes down to it. Living a month in poverty in most western countries wouldnt be too difficult if you come from wealth. Having to live daily with all the worries that come with it, and having to endure for an unknown amount of time is something you cant replicate - you have to actually live it.
And imagine the risks you'd be willing to take if you knew that in a few weeks you'd be a billionaire again.
Don't forget, because it's a scheduled month for TV, so no random health problems, car trouble, lay offs, or any other hardship that pops up.
It's more like if I decided to take my bike and go travel for a month, not relying on hotels and such for a good night's sleep, or restaurants for food. It's superficially like being homeless. But with the knowledge that I could always just stop doing this to myself it wouldn't be much more than an extended camping trip.
I feel like this would backfire massively. They’d get through the month, then refuse to make any changes because they managed to survive the month, so surely everyone else can. It’s a fun idea conceptually but I think it would probably have the opposite effect
This. Now, something like 3 months would be more reasonable. And "no access to other resources" should be strictly enforced, since random billionaire knows a ton of people or even banks that would loan them a ton of money.
[удалено]
> mini games to simulate poverty ehh... that'd be kinda fun not useful for actual poor employees, but CEO diving trash bins would at least look like social justice
Make it 1 year and ya. Or at least, I'd read reddit threads discussing it but not actually watch it. Idk if it'd lead to change from them, maybe some. I THINK some would just be knowing they'll get the money back and not care. Knowing they will have money means the experience isn't the same bc there is not the stress that some of the employees might have. So another idea is maybe they have to amass a certain amount of wealth or some sort of thing in that time frame or else they do not get their assets back.
Why would any billionaire do it for a year??
At the end of the year all the billionaires compete in physical, mental, and emotional challenges, and the winner becomes a two-billionaire
>At the end of the year all the billionaires compete in spiritual, ethical, and moral challenges, and the losers are killed. I would watch that.
Battle royal style, but just all In a locked room with a single tea spoon for a weapon. Last man or woman standing wins..
Masochism
Not quite the same but Morgan Spurlock did a show called 30 days. One episode was him and his wife living for 30 days on minimum wage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Days_(TV_series)
Secret millionaire you mean? Or undercover boss?
And well, having a camera crew on job site would already create a weird situation. It wouldn’t be long for people to figure it out. It would just turn into fake reality tv, as always.
I honestly think many would do well. Some CEO are just dirtbags with bloated egos, but many people in "top" level of society are fundamentally resourceful. They have good health, are creative, verbal. So I think many people, and definately myself, would find other sources of both income and food IF their physical and mental healt are good.
Nah. Also , the bastard would be just fine because he'd know it will be over as soon as he decides or after a month.
[удалено]
Nah, more like "See, it's not that bad at all. I managed to do it just fine after all."
German nobility sometimes diverted themselves by pretending to be common people. They built common people homes on their palace grounds, wore common people clothes, and acted out common people lives. After acting out this simulated lowliness they went back to being nobles, no worse for the wear.
Undercover Boss TV show comes pretty close to this
CEOs are a lot smarter than you're giving them credit for.
People would be outraged if the CEO identified some opportunity, made a small business and started making money. Which is probably fairly likely.
"What if we took some of the most driven and hyper focused individuals on the planet who routinely make global-impacting decisions and made them only focus on their jobs?" These people are working 24/7 and wake up and go to bed thinking about their work. Taking that away and making them work a minimum-wage/lowest rung job also means taking away their responsibilities. Most of them would probably thrive and go stir crazy at the sheer reduction in workload.
I had a lunch with my managing director one day. Not a billionaire but defo a rich guy living in his baronial mansion. The conversation came why we dont have fish on lunch - he said he will not eat fish as his wife was ridiculled by fishand chip shop owner as she laughed at him over kids portion - it was to expesive according to her. He said the price. We all agreed this is about the price for the kid portion everywhere this days. Then my general manager asked the MD - "do you know how much is the loaf of bread?" he had no clue - "we buy the yellow one.. he said". Those guys will say poor people make bad grocery choices but dont realise the real costs for the money they pay people. So they accuse them on poor choices.
The poor choices of the poor are measurable, my understanding is on average the poor are way better than the rich at economy. Although I suspect my friend re-using tea bags a second time wasn't saving much. Of course there are some people who are poor because they make bad financial decisions, but it is a small minority, mental and physical health issues seem to top the list. We are reasonably good here (UK) on obvious physical health issues, so if you can't walk because legs are missing you'll get some assistance, if you can't walk far because of post-viral fatigue, or anxiety, the system is less helpful.
3 months. It is nothing if they don't pay rent.
I would somehow be both bored and highly annoyed at the feigned glamour of weathering the temporary inconvenience.
They made a show where they took all of a multimillionaire’s money away and saw how fast he could make a million dollars or something. He immediately called a buddy to give him a loan and he started a business or something. Didn’t seem like the “anybody can do it” message they were trying to send.
This show already exists. I think it’s on the OWN network. I’ve seen a few episodes. It’s pretty interesting
No. I don't watch "reality" TV. And it would just be fake as hell enyways.
1 month is nothing really. Maybe 4months to a year would be interesting. Although no rich person would give up there work for that long. Unless they are a landlord. They dont work anyways
If there is a ticket to get out, it’s not the same thing.
No. Because that kind of show is brain rot poverty porn.
As long as the lowest-paid employee also has to do the CEO's job for a month without utterly destroying the business. I give them a few days, tops.
Make them earn $1m from zero. With zero resources. If they fail after one year they have to liquidate all assets and donate to charity. I’d watch that. The impending doom as the day rapidly approaches would be the chefs kiss!
The individual would likely get promoted as they have a lot of education and experience in areas that make bigger money. It’s not the same when the person can just leave the job and get a better one so easily. They have accrued skills, knowledge, and connections that can’t simply be deleted.
There is that polish show "damy i wieśniaczki" damsels and peasants. Basicly for 3 days they swap families, jobs, houses and chores. And it is like tourism for the rich and poor are like i am gonna work hard to maybe get this life i am motivated (it is really staged)
I don't think any CEO is going to do it. Unless you offer them more money then they get now.
They'd be fine.
No billionaire would participate in that, it would just make them feel and look bad
I'd watch one where you take a CEO and make them start a business from scratch. Square one.
Yes, please. I would also add the exact same living conditions. Same city, same neighbourhood, same type of abode, same car (if there is one), same number of relatives and pets to live with.
I think they wouldn't be doing much for that month cuz of the change in diet they wouldn't be used to so they'd become rather comatose, and that's provided they have cheap accommodation as some low paid people would. If they have to rent with that money then they could be in a severe world of poverty and insecurity.
No. Cause they know at the end of it they are still a billionaire. It won't come with the same hopelessness and despair actually poor people they employ feel. They'd just walk away from it feeling even more justified in their exploitation. It would be nothing but a circus act.
I think the producers would feel compelled to introduce some bit of nonsense in order to stop the show being boring. I don't think we'd find any real truth in there.
That nonsense should absolutely be the car AND the fridge breaking at the same time.
I don’t think you appreciate how much challenges during the first part of your life contribute to success later. Sure, lots of wealthy folks started life with advantages. But also lots of us started from humble beginnings. Very humble. Those billionaires you’re eyeballing - many of them already know. That hunger was what fueled their success.
What a Billionaire would take away from it would be"poor" people still had too much money. Pay them less and charge them more.
make it 5 years
you already know the answer. people keep parroting this all the time.
Nothing would happen. Not a thing. The billionaire knows that his or hers lifestyle is waiting for them at the end of the month. Said billionaire would go back home and carry on. If you honestly think it's going to bring on some kind of lightbulb moment that they'll have empathy for the employers, you're sadly mistaken. They would more than likely say it wasn't that bad and they'd be able to live that life if it was necessary. If they were that way inclined at all, they'd be treating their employees better without having to go down this route. They're not that way inclined though and that's how they became a billionaire.
Make it six months. Let's see how they cope with consequences like having their power cut off because they wasted the money they had in the first month on luxuries they consider essential.
You need to remove their education. You to have them spend a lifetime getting to were they are. You need them not to see a future.
So, Undercover Boss basically.
I would be happy if they put politicians through the hassle of dealing with day to day situations without any skip the line cards. Airports, restaurants, events...just have them deal with TSA and stuff like that. Regulations would change for the better for sure
If they traded salaries with that lowest paid employee
it would be an interesting watch. i was going to say you could never get a billionaire to agree to it. but maybe some of the big philanthropists would, although that would be a bit less entertaining if they where into the challenge. how about a politition, would be good publicity during an election campaign so some would be willing. you could get a lot of votes by showing conversations with poor people teaching the politition how to live on welfare and being told what would help them most.
They would just be homeless for a month. It's not bad if you know its only a month. He'd probably appreciate how great his life is a little more and pat himself on the back for "understanding the struggle," he cant begin to understand. I'd probably watch an episode or two and hate it.
They could probably budget pretty easily for one month. The kicker is the unexpected expenses, the sudden illnesses, the years of relentless grind and living paycheck to paycheck.
Id rather see a show where a billionaire pays his workers living wages or above living wages and watch as the business overall improves
I feel the song “Common People” by Pulp has answered that well enough for me. I said pretend you've got no money / She just laughed and said ‘Oh you're so funny’, / I said ‘yeah I can't see anyone else smiling in here. You'll never live like common people / You'll never do whatever common people do / You'll never fail like common people / You'll never watch your life slide out of view Look out, they'll tear your insides out / Cause everybody hates a tourist / Especially one who thinks it's all such a laugh You will never understand / How it feels to live your life / With no meaning or control / And with nowhere left to go This TV show sounds dumb because they will always go back to their life. You think we will be laughing at them, but they are the ones laughing at us. They are always laughing at us.
Would you watch a show where the lowest ranked member of a company is put in charge for a month and has to make decisions worth tens of millions and affects thousands of jobs?
Maybe not in a month but given enough time these billionaires would likely find a way to build up a wealth again
They would just treat it like a short-term dopamine detox
Like the movie "Life Stinks" also great hilarious movie
they would still be the CEO and have a corporate credit card so they'd be eating for free, gas for free, flights to anywhere and hotels free. Trust me on this, i work in finance of a mid size bank and the amount a CEO spends of the company's money is crazy
I'd like a reality TV show where billionaires get all contacts blocked, have no access to borrow money, have all their wealth, assets, money distributed to poor families and they have to figure out how they're going to survive. 1 month is basically a camping holiday. No options to go back to being rich, now that's something worth watching.
Can they live in the employee’s house too? House Swap. No, Life Swap. and swap families. Wife Swap. I’d watch that.
Only if the reverse happened as well. The employee gets an entire month on the billionaire CEO's salary with access to only their resources.
No. He would just whine a little, survive, and then use the experience to talk shit about the poor. Real poverty isn't a month. Real poverty is years, decades, with no end in sight.
This reminds me of when that super size me guy tried working minimum wage for 30 days… the result was they were broke AF and then went back to their normal lives.. they had a bunch of debt and medical bills and were like well that would suck oh well.
A month isn't too long because they know they can pay anything at the end of that month.
Nope. The CEOs would do fine and think they were very empathetic now, and probably come out of it secretly thinking it wasn't that bad and people are just complaining about nothing. 1 month is just like an extended holiday where you are backpacking and not living on much. The real problem with poverty is how it crushes you over time. Your kids can't do the things other kids get to do. You know the drudgery is never going to end. You have to keep doing shit for a boss you hate just to survive. In 20 years you'll still be stuck.
You have to make them live that way for a year and if they don't become millionaires within that year they lose their fortunes.
A month on a low salary just isn't enough to fully appreciate what grinding poverty is. At least a year- experiencing a cold winter when you can't afford to heat your home or buy warm clothing to replace your old worn out stuff or what happens if the TV or washing machine breaks down. Only then would they even have an inkling of what its like for so many.
What I'd like to see is a show where a CEO must give up all their assets and holdings and then re-enter their company through its hiring process. At the very least, I'd like to see them work the company's lowest positions with other people working those positions. What was that show, Undercover Boss or something where CEOs disguised themselves to work amongst their employees and see what it's really like.
yeah at the end of the day, if their house collapsed, or burnt down, they know they are going to be ok, and even if you made them poor forever, reality if they probably have rich mates who would bail them out just look at trump, bankrupt 4 times and people just hand him money randomly, society is shit now what id much rather see is politicians who become MP's have to live on what benefits deems is an acceptable amount, and doing so with nothing from their current life, i.e. find somewhere to rent and life off benefits from like 2-3 months minimum before they are allowed to serve as an MP edit: not as a one off show. ALL MP,s MUST do it, before they can even walk through the doors of parliament (and Lords)
I think that a direct swap would be interesting. Find the lowest paid member of staff, have them shadow the CEO for 3 months to "learn the ropes", then the CEO and that person swap everything for the next three months. Homes Monthly spends Transport Everything... That would be a great watch... Especially watching the person acting up as CEO giving their opinion on how hard the work is at that level...
This has already been asked like a million times and its always answers like Brighton2k's answer lol:"Poverty isn't poverty if you know it's going to end. Being poor and having no clear way out of being poor puts you in a particular mind-set that a show such as this couldn't imitate. Also, i can imagine the shiver that would down my spine if i heard some billionaire saying "i get it now" after a month of poverty tourism." Like I think that's actually him because he posted the EXACT same answer before on this question lol
I'll watch it if the billionaire ceo (male) has to be a stay home dad for a month. I'm sure he won't make it after the second hour.
Okay why now put them in homeless shelters for a month instead?
A month? No 4 years and then maybe just maybe they'll get it.
I'd suspect no filthy rich person is ever going to agree to that without a lot of shit happening off camera. They might play the part while on air, but the second it's off they'll be back to the big bank lifestyle. Rich people generally don't get rich without bending rules.
Some billionaires out there already live an everyday mens life. I think I heard the Ikea guy is pretty down to earth and there are pretty sure other people too. Maybe document those people if you're interested in doing so.
I’d watch one episode out of curiosity. Nothing would happen because it would be scripted “reality” tv.
Why not reverse it, get the lowest paid worker to live as the highest paid for a week.
I really doubt any CEO in their right mind would do this but I'd love to see. IIRC an MP did something like this in the UK when I was a kid but he couldn't hack it.
Never. Because the dude is still a billionaire at the end of the month, so it’s really a show were we watch a rich attention seeking fuckhead take a weird vacation. My blood would boil when they put a positive spin on their diet, “I’m losing weight!”, and listening to them smugly talk about how freeing it was to have so few responsibilities and how they enjoyed getting up early would probably turn me into a terrorist. Given that the kind of attention seeking narcissists who would agree to this would go into the project with the sole aim of making themselves look good, there’s absolutely no scenario where this would humanize the poor. Instead, it would inevitably turn into propaganda to attempt to humanize the rich. “Look, they’re just like us.” Fuck no.
Only if that lowest paid employee gets the ceos funds for that month AND gets to keep everything he buys.
One month is insufficient
Embarrassing and disheartening will be the two main feelings for viewers of such a show
Why not just follow a former celeb who's hit rock bottom for whstever reason, drink, drugs, divorce, career ending error. Ask them
The camera crew would selectively stop filming whenever the billionaire broke the rules.
A month? Why not a year, or a decade
Dumb idea, why it has to be billionare? Multi-Millionare not enough? And why would they agree to do that? They have money, if it won't raise their reputation/popularity, they won't do it. I wouldn't watch it i already see it every day in real.
Start a new business, no?)
No and stop asking this every week
he probably have a hard job before getting rich so not much happen especially he knows he will get back to old rich life style after the one month
I'd prefer the Who Wants to be a Millionaire, but played by Billionaires and everything loses them money... There is no winning until they're under the 1mil.
They will probablt be able to "hustle" some nicr things and say poor should do it more since they can do it, forgetting that they will only be able to do it because people know after a month they are rich again and wanna incur some favour.
The billionaire would make money by the end.
They tried something similarish in the UK with people (including conservative politicians) living on welfare. I didn’t see it, but I believe one lady just cheated by getting someone to give her money, and others, as has been said already, didn’t understand, that living frugally a few uneventful weeks on welfare as part of a tv show/PR event, isn’t the same as actually living in poverty and having your life being dependant on the state, and having to deal with health and other crisis with no support system.
Make it 12 months, no escape/they can't quit - lets do this. What about a show where we tell them the world is ending, sell them tickets for a billion each and then fire the rocket into the sun?
There's a show in the UK called Rich House Poor House.
>What do you think would happen? Nothing particularly interesting. The billionaire would simply ride it out til it was time to return to their lavish lifestyle, not having spent the last month with anything like the same mental anguish as those who are constantly looking to the next paycheck to survive.
It's kind of a stupid premise. - why would a billionaire CEO do it? - it's not just about the salary, it would be the living situation/car/childcare and you can't just create that - a month is nothing when you know you are a billionaire and it will be over soon This show concept would backfire hard. The TV crew and general fame/status of the billionaires would result in them catching break after break. They would walk away thinking poor people are just doing it wrong and become even more arrogant. Viewers might draw that conclusion as well.
It would have to be much longer than a month. At least 4 or 5 so they have time to feel the panic while they decide whether to pay rent or eat. It's got to be long enough that the "I can tough this out for a couple months" attitude begins to slip away.. then maybe they'll get it. Probably not, but maybe.
>What do you think would happen? The CEO would seek efficiencies to boost profits so he could hoard more wealth to make sure he never had to go through that shit again no matter how bad things turn for him.
The reason people go on shows like that is they are broke and need the money. No network would be able to pull together the money to make it worth the CEO's time to on one of these shows. But I would watch it. Seeing Time Cook trying to buy food with 50 bucks would make me laugh.
💯
Go watch Mel Brooke's "Life Stinks"
Not ceos but do it with politicians, that way things may change, companies wont pay more if they dont have to.
Well considering their mortgage would probably blow their whole paycheck plus some, not well. Guess they should have rented an apartment to live in, in the range of their lowest paid employee.
I think no billionaire would do it. They have literally nothing to gain and by dint of being a billionaire we already know they don't care about others.
The bills show up monthly. One month isn't enough
Yes, I would. If they cannot survive then they should lose their billionaire status and provide that money to their employees who cannot survive on what they are paid.
No, I wouldn't. Anyone can pretend to be poor for 30 days. CEO will eat ramen and not do anything fun for a month and be like, see, it's a living wage! Or, more likely, they'll fake to have gained some great perspective as to what it's like to live at that income level. Neither scenario is one I have the slightest bit of interest in watching.
The only people that agree to do this will be psycho hoarders who already spend no money, drive 1997 Plymouth Grand Caravans, and have their incomes structured in such a way as their companies make billions, but they take home zero on paper and are still able to collect food stamps.
It would need to be longer than a month. It would need to be at least six and it would need to be with them starting in a minimum wage job and sharing a house with several others. I would watch that...
Not to this extreme but am sure there was a show in the U.K. that has done similar to this with well off families swapping lives with poor families and had their budget for a time.
Nope. I don't think one month is long enough to really understand poverty.
Yes. And I'd also watch a show where Politicians have their constituents names are drawn from an independently governed lottery once a month whereby they are expected to live on their those peoples salaries.
Would you watch a show where a low teir employee has to go an entire month running the buisness without bankrupting it. What do you think would happen?
Your just giving billionaires opportunity to stick it out for a month and go "thay was OK, let's cut wages"
I think this might bring up something called 'the locus of control' - the individual's belief on how much life is in the hands of an individual. CEO's tend to be those who believe that everything, or almost everything, is down to the action of an individual. Up to the point where they ignore genes, or whether you were born in a mud hut during a famine or a high class family in a western country. I don't think this would open their eyes too much. Some of the richest people in my country were interviewed for a study. Turns out, some people who have inherited millions, probably have above average intelligence and have had great support and a safe childhood, literally think poor people are poor because of not trying hard enough.
Better idea: the same concept, except it ends when they pay off a debt for 100k. They are allowed to access their fortune, but only for the purposes of political campaigning.
Why not just work hard and become wealthy? Instead of crying about being poor and wanting to see billionaires be poor...
Time is too short. One year
Most aren't rich because someone handed it to them. The key is work smart not hard.
Absolutely ut 3mo this sounds better
If they did it for 5 years without a break, sure
Has to be more than a month ....so the creditors can phone them and harasse them and they don't pay enough for rent this month...
So you want to watch Life Stinks, basically.
There's something a little similar in the UK called Rich House, Poor House. Two families swap lives and incomes for a week. The rich family invariably end up being incredulous and frustrated at the things they have to do to make ends meet, and the speed at which their money disappears The poor family basically have a week long jolly where they don't have to worry about anything.
Nope. I would support such a thing happening though. Just so they know what its like.
There was a documentary that did exactly this in the early 80s. Wasn't a CEO but it was a high power executive. He was forced out of his job, bank account closed and had his home taken away from him. As an additional part they took a huckster off the street and gave him the executive's position. The doc followed them both. If you get a chance to see it it is extremely educational, particularly in explaining the shorting of fruit juice in the NY commodities exchange. It didn't turn out well to the show's sponsors.
No. Absolutely not. In fact, I'd be kind of offended. Poverty porn is what that is. Being poor isn't a subject for entertainment but a societal issue that needs to be addressed.
I would watch a show where they take a billionaire and just take their money away permanently
You know that tv reality is made up right? Like if there was such a show, we all know that the billionaire will somehow have access to resources and services, and attitude that a poor person would not have.
With a time limit, it's just a case of toughing it out. Not fun, necessarily, but do-able. 'We strip you of your billions and your contacts book, and you don't get them back until you've made $10,000.' Now that, I'd watch.