The stories of “Twenty Grand” and “Serving in Florida” bring different perspectives to the word poverty. They both describe similar situations of poverty but in completely different ways. The word, poverty, can mean different things depending on how you view the situation. Charles Murray uses an experimental thought process to show that even people that live in poverty on a daily basis can live decent, if not spectacular, lives. In “Serving in Florida,” the narrator had a job as a server in a restaurant. Throughout the story, she complains about the managers and how they do nothing for hours but earn more money than servers. The narrator described her money situation to be in trouble. “…unless I want to start using my car as a residence, I have to find a second or alternative job” she said. The situation of poverty is the same in “Twenty Grand,” as the narrator’s mother has no job and relies heavily on her husband who is a Guard for the Air National Guard. Unfortunately, many people share the same problem as the people in these stories. Money is the root of all evil. With no money, people believe they cannot live a decent life. The two stories have many differences however. The narrator from Ehrenreich’s “Serving in Florida” had a job and lived on her own but just did not have enough money. She had an apartment and was able to pay for food and gas with her tips from work. The only thing she could not do was live an ‘upper-class’ lifestyle. On the other hand, the narrator from Curtis’ “Twenty Grand” lived with her mother who had no job and relied solely on her husband. This family was so poor that groceries were difficult to purchase on a weekly basis. The narrator even struggled to find just a few crackers to eat.
Murray’s “What’s So Bad about Being Poor?” describes how poverty is portrayed in culture today. He uses an experimental thought process that puts him in poverty and makes him think about how life would be. “But the point of the thought experiment is not to suggest that all kinds of poverty are tolerable, and even less that all peasant societies are pleasant places to love.” He believed that poverty is as bad as it is portrayed when a person or people are forced to remain in that condition with no way of improving it. He put his mind in a Thailand peasant culture with people who are handsome and charming. He would learn to farm and create new relationships. After his thought process, he concludes that “if poverty is defined in terms of money, everybody in the Thai village is poor. If poverty is defined as being unable to live a modest but decent existence, hardly anyone there is poor.” His experiment is relatable to the narrators in Ehrenreich’s and Curtis’ stories. These people lived in poverty conditions but were happy to be living a decent life. After the narrator’s mother lost her old coin worth twenty grand, her family was still laughing and smiling in the car on their way home, not thinking about the money they could have obtained.
As you can see, poverty isn’t just a word used to describe people with little to no money. Poverty has different stages. There are some people who can afford to do whatever they would like. At the other end, there are people who cannot even afford food or shelter. All three of the stories mentioned describe different stages of poverty. Those without food or shelter seem to be the happiest of all as they live their lives to the fullest every day. As Charles Murray said, “To be poor is not necessarily to be without dignity; it is not necessarily to be unhappy. For those who have never been poor and never known any people who were once poor, it is difficult to treat poverty as something other than a mystery.

Weinstein, Larry. Chapter 1/Serving in Florida. Money Changes Everything / Lawrence Weinstein. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014. 26+. Print.