Classic conservative idea: Poor people who struggle do so because of their own personal faults, not because they can't make ends meet even while making sacrifices.

Snape, as far as we can tell and adding historical context for the part of England he grew up in, lived in abject poverty. I'm talk a 4-room house without a bathroom. The old cartoons of men bathing in a big tin wash tub? That's a real thing that people as young as Severus Snape had to do! This is industrial revolution meat grinder industry, and Tobias Snape was either often unemployed due to a lack of available jobs once Margaret Thatcher and her ilk axed the coal industry or was injured at work (or both, both works.) The story implies that Tobias is a drunk, so the Snapes deserve what they get. The circle of Social Darwinism and all that rot: they are bad people, so they deserve misery, and aren't able to have a stiff upper lip and avoid complaining, so they make others uncomfortable by existing, which makes them bad people, so they deserve misery...

The Weasley’s are the ideal noble poor family. They make it work, buying all the kids' school supplies on the tiniest budget with minimal hand-wringing about it and absolutely no charity will be accepted. They win a big cash prize and blow it on a vacation because they don't really need the extra money to make ends meet. Arthur works hard, we don't see any of them smoke or drink that I can remember (contrast with Mundungus being chastised for smoking a suspiciously scented cigar and Snape's probably nicotine stained teeth) and they are just so happy and pleasant to be around. Sure their clothes are worn, but everyone has something warm in the winter because Molly knits! Sure, they are poor, but even with all the kids at boarding school Molly doesn't get a paying job. She does political activism volunteer work. Isn't that just so very conservative feminist of her? Arthur makes just enough, so long as they stick to the budget.

On one hand, it's a kids book and Harry, our POV character, knows about enough about money and economics to fit on half a paper napkin. He didn't even take a maths class (arithmancy.) On the other hand, every other poor person in the books is ugly and miserable or a "uncommonly attractive orphan" predestined to be a murderer in a way that is noticeable by good people by age 11.

This is an excellent addition and I couldn't agree more. Do the Weasleys have anything close to what the Malfoys or the Blacks (or the Potters for that matter) have? No. They most certainly do not. But the three families I just named are fabulously wealthy. I'm sure that as a child Severus Snape would've given almost anything to be able to grow up in a home like what Ron had. This is not to say that you can't be poor or under financial pressure just because someone else has it worse, but it is notable given how the Weasleys are framed by the story - especially compared to other poor characters.

It's also worth noting that in-universe part of the reason the Weasleys may see themselves as being poor is that they are an old pureblood family and may to some extent be comparing themselves to families like the Blacks and the Malfoys - possibly because possibly not long ago they had similar levels of wealth which subsequently got lost.

I don't want to minimize the genuine pain and emotional impact going through that can have. No matter how much someone has, it can be extremely difficult and distressing if they lose what they consider to be their baseline standard of living. Having to make dramatic changes to your lifestyle and losing privileges you were used to is often extremely hard. And many times that is still true even if the changes someone has to make are giving up luxuries that most people could never have afforded or imagined to begin with. But even so, it is relevant context.

I just think it's really striking how as soon as characters are poor in a way that might make people uncomfortable JKR seems to want us to link it to characters' moral failings. In contrast to other poor characters, the Weasleys are clean and usually happy and not affected by their poverty in ways that could be off-putting or difficult in the way that Snape or Tom Riddle or Merope are.

I'm definitely on team 'Weasleys aren't that poor'. Aside from the big (though shabby) house full of functional furniture and cozy little details, a hobby garage, a car just for funsies, plenty of brooms even if they're older models, and yes, the plentiful food...I think they definitely used to be rich (see also: goblin silver tiara with diamonds in the family, Arthur's incessant beef with the Malfoys seemingly just because they're rich) and somehow did away with all the actual wealth and now can't get over it. Wouldn't be the first wizarding family that happened to, although the other example (the Gaunts, if it wasn't clear) are treated very very differently. The Gaunts didn't accept 'charity' either, and look where they ended up. The single difference between the two families before the books happen is how Dumbledore treats them (and the fact that Weasleys aren't quite as inbred), they just happened to ally later with people who go on to ensure the family's circumstances are drastically improved.

Anyway. I quite suspect the Weasleys don't even need a lot of money for the food either. Between the orchard, the vegetable garden, and the chickens (also in the wider series actual real pigs) that's a lot of food they don't need to buy anywhere. No wonder they could afford to blow all that money on those family vacations!

I think it's also a possibility we're all getting caught in differing definitions of 'poor'. I can't help but think of that one Simpsons post that periodically goes around, about how they were originally meant to be very poor and shabby but in the present day their lifestyle is way out of reach of most people, to the extent that they actually get thought of as rich these days. The same effect could be in play here - they're meant to be poor and perhaps in their own context they are, it's just that in present day circumstances that qualifies as rich.

(and yeah, none of that removes the hypocrisy in the treatment of the other poor people in the series, who are actually poor even by present day standards)

#this is a subject I've thought about a lot#what actually qualifies as poor in the wizarding world#the answer seems to be that if you only have some luxuries instead of a lot you're considered poor#and it's not actually about survival for them#also pet peeve but harry very much does get taught maths at hogwarts. see also my post on astronomy#and by extension the divination class that can't function without advanced maths either#but that's not really relevant to the main point of the post via @perilousraven

Also probably what's poor among older pureblood families is different from what's poor among other people. For example Tonks probably defines poverty differently than Ron does or than her mother Andromeda does. After all, in many ways the Weasleys are quite similar to the Blacks & the Malfoys - similar views about nonhuman magical beings, implied cutting off of squib relatives, viewing muggles as inferiors (though the Weasley's believe in treating Muggles well, they seem them more as charming animals than equals). It would stand to reason they would have similar views on what constitutes poverty. Also, the Weasleys have a HUGE family compared to most families we see in the wizarding world so that also adds financial strain that most others in their circle don't experience

I don't think that people must be X amount of poor or X amount of suffering to count as poor. I wouldn't have a huge issue with the way the Weasleys are portrayed in the narrative if not for the contrasting framing of other poor families whose circumstances are much worse and who are treated very differently by the narrative.

This dissonance in treatment makes it feel like the story is saying if you are "too" poor then you're gross and terrible but also you should be happy with your lot and you can never climb out of those circumstances or be deserving of a happy ending the way your wealthier (morally superior) peers are. Like yeah Snape can redeem himself from being a Death Eater somewhat, but obviously he's not going to get the girl - that's for James the wealthy pureblood even though he never seems to have truly regretted his cruelty - nor is he ever going to leave Spinner's End or get to make it through the story alive - that's for people like Harry or the Weasleys.

Moral turpitude is linked to a greater level of poverty and those characters are never able to overcome it. Even later it clings to them and trying to climb out and not just accepting their fate as social subordinates is bad. Snape of course doesn’t get the girl and dies for his “betters”. Tom is defeated and his quest for higher status and dominance over the wealthy pureblood social elite leads him down a path of evil.

Also, I would say the other difference between the Weasleys and the Gaunts is not just how Dumbledore treats them, but also that the Guants are wayyyy poorer.

It's striking to me that Merope, Tom Riddle, and Snape all know what it is to be hungry. Ron, however, the poster child poor character, does not. There's literally a major plot point about how badly equipped Ron is to deal with having to go without. Harry also know what it is to be hungry but he was secretly rich the whole time so when he moves up in the world he’s actually returning to the status quo. We don't see much mobility that comes without judgement - except through marriage (Ginny to Harry and presumably Lily to James & Petunia to Vernon). Fred and George make it big with their joke shop and that's it. But they already started off in a much better situation than the true squalor that Merope or Tom or Snape grew up in.

It's not that if you've never been hungry you can't be poor or experiencing financial hardship. But I think it says something that none of the characters who grew up extremely poor ever find true happiness or love or even make it through the story without dying an unpleasant death and all of them are framed by the narrative as morally lacking. In that context I look askance at the Weasleys being held up as the shining example of a "good" poor family.

It’s kinda like how some people will talk about “rich people” but never consider the fact that compared to plenty of people THEY are the rich people and also never consider how wealth can be relative or examine their own privilege because they're too busy thinking about those who have more than them to remember those who have less.

one of the really interesting things to me about jkr's treatment of poverty is how striving to escape poverty leads to moral failings (percy's complicity with the ministry, Snape joining the Death eaters, and even Petunia marrying Vernon and then abusing Harry) while the morally 'good' poor characters are rewarded by what is essentially chance with improvement in their circumstances. Harry grows up downtrodden: but is rewarded by randomly having a huge inheritance, because he's a Good Person. The Weasley twins, who are largely considered good by the narrative (though I tend to see them as much more morally grey than presented) work on their products, yeah, but they don't really put much effort into the business side of their business, are able to found it because Harry is nice to them and gives them money instead of having to like court investors or something and they are immediately successful. Because they are Good People. Even though there could well have been business troubles or moral compromises they had to make in the course of being entrepreneurs, just like Percy had to in the course of being a bureaucrat: but he's Bad and they are Good, so they luck out without having to do that. And Snape actively attempting to escape poverty by joining a fascist cult is, obviously, bad--but when he repents of joining the Death Eaters, he is rewarded with a stable job that lends him a lot of social status. Because he is now a Good Person. The characters who try to get out of poverty end up making moral compromises to do so, but characters who are good are rewarded by the universe with financial success (almost like they are being revealed to be part of the elect....)

Building on that, there’s a hostility toward the Weasleys specifically ever doing anything to improve their circumstances (Arthur taking a better-paying job that wouldn’t be his dream job of breaking international law because he feels like it, Molly getting any job at all, maintaining good relationships with the older kids so they’d feel any sense of responsibility toward their younger siblings) that creates both a Doylistic sense of Joanne rewarding Virtuous Poors and a Watsonian question of “why are you people so dysfunctional that you’re giving your children seemingly unnecessary complexes over being poor??” terribly confusing woman, all told, and I’ve nothing more to add without veering far off topic