The Debate About Poverty Simulations and Their Effectiveness

I have a question – do you think poverty simulations are a good thing?

Near the end of my last year in high school, a friend in our school’s Emergency club got an idea. The average person in the world lived on $2 a day, he said; we as students could take part in a simulation so that we could see how difficult it really was.

A number of us took part in varying degrees of participation during a week  - some of us only counted food as part of our $2 a day, while others went as far as to camp in their backyards and eliminate their use of electricity. To this day I remember creeping into my house after sleeping in my chilly garage, and taking quick, cold showers in the morning to keep my “spending” tally as low as possible. (For the record, cold showers during spring in Pittsburgh are not nearly as fun as cold showers during the summer in Pittsburgh.)

At the end of the week some of us took part in a potluck celebrating the end of the simulation. There, we shared our thoughts and insights about the difficulties of living on $2. Some of us slept pretty poorly, which absolutely affected our moods, our level of concentration, and our general health (I slept in my garage for most of the week – four or five hours of sleep out there was a good night’s sleep). Most of us could barely focus on getting our work done because we kept thinking about eating something other than cheap crackers and noodles. The general consensus was, none of us really thought about the minor comforts of our lives and the resources we had until we lost them, and it made us reconsider a lot in terms of our ideas of those living in poverty.

Considering our overall positive reflection, when I read this article, I was actually kind of surprised to see someone demanding that people abandon the “grotesque” practices used in simulation projects. Specifically, the writer criticized the effectiveness of the Global Poverty Project’s “Live Below the Line” experiment. For that simulation, participants were asked to spend no more than $1.50 on food a day - an amount on which 1.4 billion people currently live on daily. This is what was written in response:

Not spending a lot of money on food isn't "living" below the line, because regardless of how you eat, chances are your home is still stocked with Ikea stuff, a comfortable bed, hot water, air conditioning, digital cable, etc. People forced to spend no more than $1.50 a day on food are also forced to live with violence, exposure to the elements, disease, and war. Saying you're living like them because you've decided to give up fancy sandwiches for five days is like someone saying they can empathize with Nelson Mandela because they spent a night in the drunk tank.

(Read the article in its entirety when you have a chance, by the way.)

I’ll always have a mixed response to this writer’s feelings on poverty simulations. Certainly, some simulations fall short of their goal. And I agree: a simulation is not the same as living on limited resources every day, and a simulation by itself does not create change. At the same time, I’ll never condone speaking down to people who are trying to build some understanding about an issue. And I say that what a person gains from a simulation is entirely up to them.

 Sure, some people will soon forget about their experience. And personally, I have my doubts that these simulations will be the direct cause for change any time in the near future.

But to this day, I remember my experience of sleeping in a garage, living on crackers and noodles, and taking brief cold showers. To this day, I appreciate the simple joy of having a roof over my head, and of having access to hot water, as well as fresh fruit in my fridge. I appreciate all of the resources in my life that many lack. And I know other people, not just the ones at my high school, gained similar appreciations during their own simulations.

I remember the way this simulation changed my mindset – as well as the way it impacted my classmates. And if a simple $2 a Day simulation shaped the way we approached poverty, hunger, and other human right’s issues going into college, and continues to stay with us into the future as we build upon those experiences? If it encouraged us to think about these issues in a new manner, and encouraged us to learn more about these problems and try to make a difference through further research, rather than remain apathetic about the topic…then I’d argue that there was nothing grotesque about a simple poverty simulation.