The cost of being poor: Why it costs so much to be poor in America(finmasters.com)
finmasters.com
The cost of being poor: Why it costs so much to be poor in America
https://finmasters.com/cost-of-being-poor/
577 comments
It's disheartening to read some of the replies to your comment. A large number of Americans seem so traumatized/conditioned to the suburban/car-centric setup, that they can't even envision a future with Transit.
It is doubly sad, because the political and economic dominance of the boomer era was so pronounced, that many Americans now dream of a future (suburban white picket fence house) that is derived from exactly this unsustainable past that made the 'dream' unachievable in the first place. American suburbia works if you live in a unipolar era of unprecedented wealth that's unmatched almost anywhere else in the world or in history. Well, duh. It's no different to considering Dubai's abandoned Palm Islands or World Islands a sensible infrastructure because they haven't yet bankrupted a country with practically infinite per-capita wealth. The first sign of economic troubles will decisively doom your nation. It's started for America, and other unsustainable cities will follow suit.
it is staring Americans in their face too. Every private money-conscious closed-system mini-govt ensure that transit and density are in order. People rave about the convenience of buses in college towns and Disneyland's metro system, as if either of those are unrealistic outside of those contexts.
I have said it before and will say it again. American urban infrastructure (or lack there of) is the closest thing we have to a monocausal root of all of America's problems. Obesity, loneliness, cost of living, low trust, Govt. debt etc etc.
It is doubly sad, because the political and economic dominance of the boomer era was so pronounced, that many Americans now dream of a future (suburban white picket fence house) that is derived from exactly this unsustainable past that made the 'dream' unachievable in the first place. American suburbia works if you live in a unipolar era of unprecedented wealth that's unmatched almost anywhere else in the world or in history. Well, duh. It's no different to considering Dubai's abandoned Palm Islands or World Islands a sensible infrastructure because they haven't yet bankrupted a country with practically infinite per-capita wealth. The first sign of economic troubles will decisively doom your nation. It's started for America, and other unsustainable cities will follow suit.
it is staring Americans in their face too. Every private money-conscious closed-system mini-govt ensure that transit and density are in order. People rave about the convenience of buses in college towns and Disneyland's metro system, as if either of those are unrealistic outside of those contexts.
I have said it before and will say it again. American urban infrastructure (or lack there of) is the closest thing we have to a monocausal root of all of America's problems. Obesity, loneliness, cost of living, low trust, Govt. debt etc etc.
Mostly agree.
The problem with monocausal issue is that it also touches everything.
To really address it, there is no monocausal solution.
- Taxation policy (Land Value Tax)
- Transportation policy local and federal level
- Services policy (police, social services)
- Land use policy (mixed-use, multi-fam homes and so on)
Problem is many of these institutional systems were developed or revolutionized in the exact wrong moment, in the 50/60. So that many standards and standard way of doing things have encoded the exact wrong solution.
Traffic engineering is a particular victim of this. Everything is done by a book of standards, and the standards are just totally wrong.
The problem with monocausal issue is that it also touches everything.
To really address it, there is no monocausal solution.
- Taxation policy (Land Value Tax)
- Transportation policy local and federal level
- Services policy (police, social services)
- Land use policy (mixed-use, multi-fam homes and so on)
Problem is many of these institutional systems were developed or revolutionized in the exact wrong moment, in the 50/60. So that many standards and standard way of doing things have encoded the exact wrong solution.
Traffic engineering is a particular victim of this. Everything is done by a book of standards, and the standards are just totally wrong.
> Problem is many of these institutional systems were developed or revolutionized in the exact wrong moment, in the 50/60.
In addition, because of the way the policies were made and allowed select people to get rich from these policies, those people now use their money and power to further entrench these policies to keep their own power and money. The auto industry wants continued government subsidies for roads, vacant land owners want to continue property tax instead of land value tax, etc.
It's like we've dug a massive hole and some of us see a way out, but many people with the tools are still digging.
In addition, because of the way the policies were made and allowed select people to get rich from these policies, those people now use their money and power to further entrench these policies to keep their own power and money. The auto industry wants continued government subsidies for roads, vacant land owners want to continue property tax instead of land value tax, etc.
It's like we've dug a massive hole and some of us see a way out, but many people with the tools are still digging.
I'm as much of a transportation alternatives fan as anyone, but when I got to the "Cars vs Public Transit" I just rolled my eyes a bit. Modern ebikes cost a few thousand dollars, and are so absurdly cheaper than cars, they pay for themselves within a single year.
Average Annual Cost of Car Ownership:
$9,282: https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-...
$5,264: https://www.move.org/average-cost-owning-a-car/#data
$11,756 the first year, $7517 the fifth year, $5914 the tenth year: https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a31267529/cost-of-car-...
Cost of a top-of-the line cargo bike:
$6,499.00 (Dual battery, 1,000Wh), Bosch dual-battery system (500/1000 Wh) for a range of up to 206 km (128 mi): https://www.ternbicycles.com/us/bikes/472/gsd-s10-lx
If you live within 20m of where you work, and cargo-centric ebike will suffice (or farther if you can charge it at work). You can take kids to school on one, you can go grocery shopping on one, you effectively do every single trip in a modern city.
For the few things you can't do, the occasional cost of short term car rentals are drops in a bucket.
The point I'm trying to make is this. Yes, public transit is important, yes we need to make our cities interconnected with trains. However, if we want to create a functional system for transit alternatives... we can do it literally today, by creating network of low-car/car-free streets for ebike traffic.
Average Annual Cost of Car Ownership:
$9,282: https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-...
$5,264: https://www.move.org/average-cost-owning-a-car/#data
$11,756 the first year, $7517 the fifth year, $5914 the tenth year: https://www.caranddriver.com/research/a31267529/cost-of-car-...
Cost of a top-of-the line cargo bike:
$6,499.00 (Dual battery, 1,000Wh), Bosch dual-battery system (500/1000 Wh) for a range of up to 206 km (128 mi): https://www.ternbicycles.com/us/bikes/472/gsd-s10-lx
If you live within 20m of where you work, and cargo-centric ebike will suffice (or farther if you can charge it at work). You can take kids to school on one, you can go grocery shopping on one, you effectively do every single trip in a modern city.
For the few things you can't do, the occasional cost of short term car rentals are drops in a bucket.
The point I'm trying to make is this. Yes, public transit is important, yes we need to make our cities interconnected with trains. However, if we want to create a functional system for transit alternatives... we can do it literally today, by creating network of low-car/car-free streets for ebike traffic.
This doesn't work so well as to warrant an 'eye-roll' for a large portion of the world, where it would be ridiculous to expect people to be riding ebikes long distances, for half the year or more. In my city, people would think you were insane if you tried riding more than than a few Kms with any regularity during the winter, since it often hits -45 C (-49 f), generally with significant snow and slush on the ground. It's also not exactly trivial to make such a huge change to layouts of cities' traffic flows.
Edit: As a point of illustration that I'm not overstating the issue, my city actually has a thriving e/bike rental market for 5-6 months/year and for the other part of the year, the rentals literally disappear and you can't find a single one until part way through spring season.
Edit: As a point of illustration that I'm not overstating the issue, my city actually has a thriving e/bike rental market for 5-6 months/year and for the other part of the year, the rentals literally disappear and you can't find a single one until part way through spring season.
Aside from the triviality that the cities with highest rates of cycle commuting all have snowy winters (Denmark, Sweden, Norway), a city where people regularly commute in -45C will really not matter if people are walk+transit or cycling. -45C is not normal.
If you're riding at any decent speed, say 20 mph (32kph), think about the additional windchill that adds: -30C becomes ~-46C, if you're blessed enough to not have existing cross or head winds.
Base -30C temp is pretty normal here during the winter (3+ weeks worth before winter even started this year). Granted, in my city at least, we would have to do a much better job clearing/sanding your proposed bike roads than we do our regular roads to maintain that speed on a bike with any sort of safety. In any case, it's a helluva lot easier/more comfortable and less risky to bundle up and trundle to the train/bus station, than to risk additional frostbite from that windchill or wipeouts due to reduced stability of bikes on ice for any significant time. Again, assuming you could convince everyone else who has money for a car to abandon their cars and convert enough roads to dedicated bikeways, and build the infrastructure to safely store a bunch of $3,000-$7,000 ebikes.
Beyond all that, ebikes don't solve a lot of problems if you have a family of any significant size. If I have to buy, maintain, and secure 5 ebikes (and get my kids good with and prepped for riding in the cold and snow), public transit or even a car start looking much, much better.
I realize that most people don't live as far north as I do, but there are many millions who do and my whole point was that it's not eye rollingly obvious that ebikes are the immediate solution for everyone.
Base -30C temp is pretty normal here during the winter (3+ weeks worth before winter even started this year). Granted, in my city at least, we would have to do a much better job clearing/sanding your proposed bike roads than we do our regular roads to maintain that speed on a bike with any sort of safety. In any case, it's a helluva lot easier/more comfortable and less risky to bundle up and trundle to the train/bus station, than to risk additional frostbite from that windchill or wipeouts due to reduced stability of bikes on ice for any significant time. Again, assuming you could convince everyone else who has money for a car to abandon their cars and convert enough roads to dedicated bikeways, and build the infrastructure to safely store a bunch of $3,000-$7,000 ebikes.
Beyond all that, ebikes don't solve a lot of problems if you have a family of any significant size. If I have to buy, maintain, and secure 5 ebikes (and get my kids good with and prepped for riding in the cold and snow), public transit or even a car start looking much, much better.
I realize that most people don't live as far north as I do, but there are many millions who do and my whole point was that it's not eye rollingly obvious that ebikes are the immediate solution for everyone.
I do find it curious that the only neighbourhoods in my own city where use of bikes for that sort of thing (grocery shopping, taking kids to school etc.) is common are typically fairly well-off ones.
I'm wondering if part of the reason is that those in poorer neighbourhoods are too worried about having a bike stolen? (it would certainly worry me!). Obviously part of it is also lack of investment in decent bike-friendly infrastructure. But I suspect it may be partly cultural - esp. in areas where there's a significant number of recent immigrants who might think of bicycles as something people would only use to get around on in the poorer countries they came from.
It's always hard to gauge why large groups of people don't do things. I think one of the main issues is just getting it into peoples minds that $6,000 is a reasonable amount to spend on a bicycle:
"But you could buy a used car for that much"
is the common refrain I hear. Yes, you could buy a cheap car for that much, and then immediately have to dump in at least $80 a tank for fuel.
The concept of using a bicycle instead of a car is just so foreign, that I think most American without active inter-cultural experience, say, living in a foreign country or at least multiple areas of the US, are not going to really understand how that would even work without having it spelled out for them line by line. Unfortunately, I fear that the people most likely to fall into a cultural homogeneity are low income, for exactly the reason that uprooting oneself is expensive.
When I go line-by-line explaining how car-free or low-car life is wildly less expensive than normal commuting, the main reply is... "Yea, that's stupid. Nobody is going to do that." I hear this in San Francisco, where anyone can trivially walk down to the wiggle and watch literally thousands of people every day commuting by bicycle.
At this point, it seems most people won't actually approach the subject rationally. People don't do it because it seems mentally ridiculous to them, and honestly, once I can get people out on a bike, they suddenly think that it's actually a really nice way to commute.
"But you could buy a used car for that much"
is the common refrain I hear. Yes, you could buy a cheap car for that much, and then immediately have to dump in at least $80 a tank for fuel.
The concept of using a bicycle instead of a car is just so foreign, that I think most American without active inter-cultural experience, say, living in a foreign country or at least multiple areas of the US, are not going to really understand how that would even work without having it spelled out for them line by line. Unfortunately, I fear that the people most likely to fall into a cultural homogeneity are low income, for exactly the reason that uprooting oneself is expensive.
When I go line-by-line explaining how car-free or low-car life is wildly less expensive than normal commuting, the main reply is... "Yea, that's stupid. Nobody is going to do that." I hear this in San Francisco, where anyone can trivially walk down to the wiggle and watch literally thousands of people every day commuting by bicycle.
At this point, it seems most people won't actually approach the subject rationally. People don't do it because it seems mentally ridiculous to them, and honestly, once I can get people out on a bike, they suddenly think that it's actually a really nice way to commute.
> I think one of the main issues is just getting it into peoples minds that $6,000 is a reasonable amount to spend on a bicycle
Not sure I agree, given that you can buy a perfectly serviceable 2nd hand e-bike for a good deal less, though if you want something capable of carrying kids/groceries etc., you're still looking at a considerable outlay if you have very limited savings (3k seems to be a pretty standard ask for good condition ones). Still, you can get new e-trikes with reasonable carrying capacity for well under 2k, and a lot cheaper still if you're fit enough to power it yourself :)
FWIW, I don't personally go largely car-free for any sort of financial reason - I just much prefer getting around by bike than car, and as long as there's access to a car when needed it's basically never an issue.
Not sure I agree, given that you can buy a perfectly serviceable 2nd hand e-bike for a good deal less, though if you want something capable of carrying kids/groceries etc., you're still looking at a considerable outlay if you have very limited savings (3k seems to be a pretty standard ask for good condition ones). Still, you can get new e-trikes with reasonable carrying capacity for well under 2k, and a lot cheaper still if you're fit enough to power it yourself :)
FWIW, I don't personally go largely car-free for any sort of financial reason - I just much prefer getting around by bike than car, and as long as there's access to a car when needed it's basically never an issue.
The math is obvious. If it's $6K vs nothing, I agree with you, but that's not what we're discussing. It's $6K vs minimum $5K/year. Asking people to ride a bike shouldn't be treated like a "craigslist purchase." Car replacements are serious pieces of machinery.
I mean isn’t it stupid to expect bike usage given the layout/organization of most of our cities?
No, obviously. If you live within 20 miles of where you work, and ebike is a perfectly sensible way to commute.
100% agree with the bike policy thing.
And you don't even need an e-bike in most situations.
And you don't even need an e-bike in most situations.
It seems like a large stretch to call car dependency "the majority of the problem" when only one of the eight areas in the article are clearly related to car dependency. For transportation, yes absolutely car dependency is a major cost. But how would reducing car dependency significantly affect the high cost of childcare, for example?
I completely agree that there would be a lot of benefits if the US focused on making urban areas more walkable and less car-dependent, but I feel it's often presented as though it would solve every problem that the US has.
I completely agree that there would be a lot of benefits if the US focused on making urban areas more walkable and less car-dependent, but I feel it's often presented as though it would solve every problem that the US has.
> But how would reducing car dependency significantly affect the high cost of childcare, for example
1. Driving children to schools and other activities is a huge cost in time and money. If children could walk and bike, it would be much cheaper. I walked to school (even back home for launch) and then took the bicycle to soccer practice.
2. Children can spend time alone much earlier and travel alone much earlier. My parents were comfortable with me being alone at home for launch and after school, risk of car accidents was vanishingly small.
3. Mother helping each other out in a walkable neighborhood is trivial. My mother worked, I would simply walk home with a friend and would it at his house. And then later when my parents were home from work I would walk home. No big deal.
4. Having distributed housing policy with lots of option leads to cheaper apartments being available next to richer neighborhoods, means that its easier for low paid child care workers to live closer (walking distance) from the people who have children to take care off.
5. Having mixed use zoning allows for buildings that have child care facilty closer to actual housing in general.
> but I feel it's often presented as though it would solve every problem that the US has
I doesn't solve every problem, but it impacts most problems positively.
1. Driving children to schools and other activities is a huge cost in time and money. If children could walk and bike, it would be much cheaper. I walked to school (even back home for launch) and then took the bicycle to soccer practice.
2. Children can spend time alone much earlier and travel alone much earlier. My parents were comfortable with me being alone at home for launch and after school, risk of car accidents was vanishingly small.
3. Mother helping each other out in a walkable neighborhood is trivial. My mother worked, I would simply walk home with a friend and would it at his house. And then later when my parents were home from work I would walk home. No big deal.
4. Having distributed housing policy with lots of option leads to cheaper apartments being available next to richer neighborhoods, means that its easier for low paid child care workers to live closer (walking distance) from the people who have children to take care off.
5. Having mixed use zoning allows for buildings that have child care facilty closer to actual housing in general.
> but I feel it's often presented as though it would solve every problem that the US has
I doesn't solve every problem, but it impacts most problems positively.
Also if you're not spending your time, money, and energy on gas, a car payment, insurance, registration, smog, or stressful traffic, you have time, money, and energy for other things. Let alone the huge costs to society incurred by the myriad ways the car-based hellscape destroys lives, limbs, and property.
On top of that, iirc even if you never have an accident or use a car, living next to a busy road has also been correlated with lower life expectancy regardless of socio-economic indicators.
On top of that, iirc even if you never have an accident or use a car, living next to a busy road has also been correlated with lower life expectancy regardless of socio-economic indicators.
I have a couple of small stores nearby and I don't use them at all for groceries because the selection is limited and the prices are high. I drive the 1.5 miles to the larger local store.
Those stores could have different variety if more people relied on them, but they simply don't have the space to compete with the larger store. One gets by selling alcohol and convenience items, the other is really a meat counter.
Those stores could have different variety if more people relied on them, but they simply don't have the space to compete with the larger store. One gets by selling alcohol and convenience items, the other is really a meat counter.
This is a pipe dream. US cities will never be able to accommodate public transportation as a viable alternative to car ownership. Take a drive around Europe and take a drive around the US and it becomes very obvious, very quickly, why that’s the case. You can’t go back and relayout every American town and city. Just not gonna happen. Sorry. Find something else to pour your energy into.
Not to mention that many/most Americans don’t want to live in your utopia. I’ve lived in walkable, lively parts of cities. Now I live in a stand-alone house and drive everywhere and I much prefer it.
Not to mention that many/most Americans don’t want to live in your utopia. I’ve lived in walkable, lively parts of cities. Now I live in a stand-alone house and drive everywhere and I much prefer it.
> You can’t go back and relayout every American town and city.
You don't actually need to do this! Its a fantasy that you somehow need to re-design your city to make improvements.
In fact, by simply removing some harmful regulation you can already do 100x better. Removing the function based zoning. Allow mixed use as default. Removing lots of the other regulation such as minimum lot size, offsets and so on.
US city were not designed for cars, and mostly they are simple grids, and that's totally fine.
Changes in pricing for things like water, move to block pricing and increase price depending on how much infrastructure is required.
The tax system should move from property based to land based.
Cars need to be slowed down, lanes need to be made thinner, and add a protected bike lane. This is actually a case where US insane wide streets come in handy, space for bike-lanes is already there.
> Not to mention that many/most Americans don’t want to live in your utopia. I’ve lived in walkable, lively parts of cities. Now I live in a stand-alone house and drive everywhere and I much prefer it.
Even rural and small towns or even villages can be walkable.
And your taxes are likely not covering the infrastructure required for you live-style, you are subsidized by the poorer parts of the city you live in.
Also evidence shows, that areas such as I suggest are getting a huge amount of demand and are really expensive. So I think evidence is clear that there is a huge amount for such development.
And evidence also shows that where they happen they actually make sense for cities in terms of taxation.
This playlist compiles a lot of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_SXXTBypIg&list=PLJp5q-R0lZ...
> Find something else to pour your energy into.
I'm not 'pouring my energy into it'. I'm simply commenting on an article. That seems to miss the forest because of the trees.
You don't actually need to do this! Its a fantasy that you somehow need to re-design your city to make improvements.
In fact, by simply removing some harmful regulation you can already do 100x better. Removing the function based zoning. Allow mixed use as default. Removing lots of the other regulation such as minimum lot size, offsets and so on.
US city were not designed for cars, and mostly they are simple grids, and that's totally fine.
Changes in pricing for things like water, move to block pricing and increase price depending on how much infrastructure is required.
The tax system should move from property based to land based.
Cars need to be slowed down, lanes need to be made thinner, and add a protected bike lane. This is actually a case where US insane wide streets come in handy, space for bike-lanes is already there.
> Not to mention that many/most Americans don’t want to live in your utopia. I’ve lived in walkable, lively parts of cities. Now I live in a stand-alone house and drive everywhere and I much prefer it.
Even rural and small towns or even villages can be walkable.
And your taxes are likely not covering the infrastructure required for you live-style, you are subsidized by the poorer parts of the city you live in.
Also evidence shows, that areas such as I suggest are getting a huge amount of demand and are really expensive. So I think evidence is clear that there is a huge amount for such development.
And evidence also shows that where they happen they actually make sense for cities in terms of taxation.
This playlist compiles a lot of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_SXXTBypIg&list=PLJp5q-R0lZ...
> Find something else to pour your energy into.
I'm not 'pouring my energy into it'. I'm simply commenting on an article. That seems to miss the forest because of the trees.
> You can’t go back and relayout every American town and city.
We did it before when we ripped out all the street cars and replaced them with stroads.
We did it before when we ripped out all the street cars and replaced them with stroads.
I would have agreed with you... up until the pandemic. If we didn't live in a car dependent country, way more people I know would have died. You -could- make the argument that we'd probably be healthier and thus, wouldn't be as severe of a risk but that's neither here nor there.
I barely leave the house. And when I do, I've mostly always taken as much precautions as I could. I get curbside pickup for all of my groceries. I can't drink the water locally, so I'm dependent on bottled water.
All of this would have been a disaster if I had to cram myself on public transit to go places (definitely would have caught COVID then) or lug a fucking case of water to my house 4 times a week.
I barely leave the house. And when I do, I've mostly always taken as much precautions as I could. I get curbside pickup for all of my groceries. I can't drink the water locally, so I'm dependent on bottled water.
All of this would have been a disaster if I had to cram myself on public transit to go places (definitely would have caught COVID then) or lug a fucking case of water to my house 4 times a week.
> way more people I know would have died.
Ähh no idea what you are talking about. There is no evidence that less car depended places have higher death rates. You can't just throw out something like that without explanation.
How many people have been saved because they had a neighbor who was one apartment below and was able to help very quickly.
I would argue to opposite of what you suggest is true. More dense less car depended places have a far easier and cheaper time getting medical care to people.
Getting medical care to some far flung subburbs is part of the issue.
> I barely leave the house. And when I do, I've mostly always taken as much precautions as I could.
Why? What crazy situation is this? Most people in most places in the world are not afraid to leave the place where they live. And that was even true for most poor cities. Locals are usually not afraid to walk to the store down the street in their neighborhood.
> I can't drink the water locally, so I'm dependent on bottled water.
That again is a problem of infrastructure. Infrastructure problems are very hard to solve in far flung suburbs and are very expensive because the amount of piping goes up per person.
So I agree, that's a very bad situation, but the solution to that is infrastructure, and not car dependency.
> All of this would have been a disaster if I had to cram myself on public transit to go places
First of all, there is this thing called walking. Also a think called, a bike.
Also talking about public transport in terms of 'cram' is funny, because often you have more space in public transit then in a car and you can work or watch movies.
You seem to have a US perspective of public transit being some dingy lower class thing.
> definitely would have caught COVID then
Funny I never had COVID and I live in Switzerland, the most public transport orient place in the world maybe.
> or lug a fucking case of water to my house 4 times a week.
I actually do that with Cola Light an it isn't that big a deal.
If you want to do really big one time deliveries for some bulk items every week, that's fine. Or you can can also get a small wood cart or some kind of wheeled transport device and carry a week plus worth of water.
Ähh no idea what you are talking about. There is no evidence that less car depended places have higher death rates. You can't just throw out something like that without explanation.
How many people have been saved because they had a neighbor who was one apartment below and was able to help very quickly.
I would argue to opposite of what you suggest is true. More dense less car depended places have a far easier and cheaper time getting medical care to people.
Getting medical care to some far flung subburbs is part of the issue.
> I barely leave the house. And when I do, I've mostly always taken as much precautions as I could.
Why? What crazy situation is this? Most people in most places in the world are not afraid to leave the place where they live. And that was even true for most poor cities. Locals are usually not afraid to walk to the store down the street in their neighborhood.
> I can't drink the water locally, so I'm dependent on bottled water.
That again is a problem of infrastructure. Infrastructure problems are very hard to solve in far flung suburbs and are very expensive because the amount of piping goes up per person.
So I agree, that's a very bad situation, but the solution to that is infrastructure, and not car dependency.
> All of this would have been a disaster if I had to cram myself on public transit to go places
First of all, there is this thing called walking. Also a think called, a bike.
Also talking about public transport in terms of 'cram' is funny, because often you have more space in public transit then in a car and you can work or watch movies.
You seem to have a US perspective of public transit being some dingy lower class thing.
> definitely would have caught COVID then
Funny I never had COVID and I live in Switzerland, the most public transport orient place in the world maybe.
> or lug a fucking case of water to my house 4 times a week.
I actually do that with Cola Light an it isn't that big a deal.
If you want to do really big one time deliveries for some bulk items every week, that's fine. Or you can can also get a small wood cart or some kind of wheeled transport device and carry a week plus worth of water.
> because going to a store is not a car trip, you can do it every day, or every other day. You don't need a insanely large fridge and freezers that Americans seem to have.
I don't want to go to the store that often. Going to the store twice takes way longer than going once and buying twice as much stuff, even if you don't count driving time.
> You can also take advantage of temporary price reductions.
I can do that now, by buying a bunch of food when it's on sale, then loading it all into my car and putting it in my fridge and freezer that have room for all of it. In your world, I couldn't do that.
I don't want to go to the store that often. Going to the store twice takes way longer than going once and buying twice as much stuff, even if you don't count driving time.
> You can also take advantage of temporary price reductions.
I can do that now, by buying a bunch of food when it's on sale, then loading it all into my car and putting it in my fridge and freezer that have room for all of it. In your world, I couldn't do that.
> I don't want to go to the store that often.
Then don't, its not forced on anybody.
What you are missing is that you think of going to the store as a trip in off itself. If you like in a walkable community, going to store is just something you do on the side.
I might bring some of my recycling to the center, go to a friends place to hang out then on my way home I quickly go to the store and pick up a few thing that I am missing.
Or simply on my way home from work.
Or sometimes I just go because its a nice couple minutes walk in the fresh hair and I can get some fresh bread.
> I can do that now, by buying a bunch of food when it's on sale, then loading it all into my car and putting it in my fridge and freezer that have room for all of it. In your world, I couldn't do that.
You realize that you just said that you need a car and a large fridge and freezer to save money right? I have neither of those and pretty sure that saves money.
Often those lower priced things are not huge bulk products that you can buy at lower price in unlimited quantity. What I am talking about is that usually there is a box with lots of stuff that is close to expiry date that you can pick up for cheap.
Then don't, its not forced on anybody.
What you are missing is that you think of going to the store as a trip in off itself. If you like in a walkable community, going to store is just something you do on the side.
I might bring some of my recycling to the center, go to a friends place to hang out then on my way home I quickly go to the store and pick up a few thing that I am missing.
Or simply on my way home from work.
Or sometimes I just go because its a nice couple minutes walk in the fresh hair and I can get some fresh bread.
> I can do that now, by buying a bunch of food when it's on sale, then loading it all into my car and putting it in my fridge and freezer that have room for all of it. In your world, I couldn't do that.
You realize that you just said that you need a car and a large fridge and freezer to save money right? I have neither of those and pretty sure that saves money.
Often those lower priced things are not huge bulk products that you can buy at lower price in unlimited quantity. What I am talking about is that usually there is a box with lots of stuff that is close to expiry date that you can pick up for cheap.
> Then don't, its not forced on anybody.
If I weren't allowed to have a car anymore, then it would be forced on me, since I wouldn't be able to buy more than I can carry in one trip anymore.
If I weren't allowed to have a car anymore, then it would be forced on me, since I wouldn't be able to buy more than I can carry in one trip anymore.
So first of all, go look at the Netherlands. The idea that you can't buy in bulk without a car is nonsense.
Even when I was child we had a little cart for the bicycle (or just pulling) that you could put a gigantic amount of food into.
Second, unless you live literally right in a city center where I would advocate outright banning cars, nobody is forcing you. And even then, if you need to move, there is likely some special thing you can get to be allow for that to happen.
What I want is for drivers to pay for the actual cost of space, and infrastructure (and pollution and sound and traffic) that they are causing. So if you are rich, then yeah, have a car, do your big box score shopping run and go buy 50kg of rice and store it in your underground bunker or whatever.
However, as a society, building a society where 20% have a car, rather then 80% is clearly a good thing, from virtually angle level you look at it. And even those people that have a car, maybe go from 4 trips a day to 0.5 trips a day.
Even when I was child we had a little cart for the bicycle (or just pulling) that you could put a gigantic amount of food into.
Second, unless you live literally right in a city center where I would advocate outright banning cars, nobody is forcing you. And even then, if you need to move, there is likely some special thing you can get to be allow for that to happen.
What I want is for drivers to pay for the actual cost of space, and infrastructure (and pollution and sound and traffic) that they are causing. So if you are rich, then yeah, have a car, do your big box score shopping run and go buy 50kg of rice and store it in your underground bunker or whatever.
However, as a society, building a society where 20% have a car, rather then 80% is clearly a good thing, from virtually angle level you look at it. And even those people that have a car, maybe go from 4 trips a day to 0.5 trips a day.
Who is proposing the forceful removal of cars? It's about having options.
> The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
Even if the poor are smart and well behaved this will still apply.
Even if the poor are smart and well behaved this will still apply.
Te actual example is pretty bad. And the general case doesn't actually hold up.
You can get really decent pair of stable boots that can last many years for pretty reasonable price. The increase in quality compared to price of some super custom boots isn't actually sensable.
99% of what rich people buy is not of some massively superior quality. Specially in terms of clothing.
Maybe some really good winter clothing is a exception, but even then layering is probably a better solution to stay warm.
So really I don't buy this explanation unless people can give me some better examples.
You can get really decent pair of stable boots that can last many years for pretty reasonable price. The increase in quality compared to price of some super custom boots isn't actually sensable.
99% of what rich people buy is not of some massively superior quality. Specially in terms of clothing.
Maybe some really good winter clothing is a exception, but even then layering is probably a better solution to stay warm.
So really I don't buy this explanation unless people can give me some better examples.
It's from a novel in a fantasy setting. I don't think it's meant to literally reflect what happens with boots in the real world, it's meant to be a metaphor.
It does happen quite literally in the real world with umbrellas, by the way. I live in a quite rainy area. Around 7 or 8 years ago I spent around €60 on a good Knirps umbrella, haven't needed another at the moment. When I bought cheaper umbrellas (not really due to skimping, but I didn't really know the good ones) they only lasted 1-2 years before totally breaking and becoming unusable.
It does happen quite literally in the real world with umbrellas, by the way. I live in a quite rainy area. Around 7 or 8 years ago I spent around €60 on a good Knirps umbrella, haven't needed another at the moment. When I bought cheaper umbrellas (not really due to skimping, but I didn't really know the good ones) they only lasted 1-2 years before totally breaking and becoming unusable.
Yes I understand that. But then what are the real world example, because non of the once provided are convincing.
It's certainly the case that anyone who needs an item but doesn't have cash on hand for it is going to pay more (by borrowing and paying interest), which isn't quite the same phenomenon but boils down to the same conclusion: in many cases, it costs more to be poor.
However I will agree there are likely more cases where buying the cheaper product is the most economical option even in the long run - obviously true for perishable items, but e.g. when deciding to buy 2nd hand vs new, and yes, even for things like clothes, there are clearly examples of items whose price bears little relation to their likely longevity. Though I would suggest in general that a $100 pair of shoes is likely to last more than 4 times longer than a $25 pair.
However I will agree there are likely more cases where buying the cheaper product is the most economical option even in the long run - obviously true for perishable items, but e.g. when deciding to buy 2nd hand vs new, and yes, even for things like clothes, there are clearly examples of items whose price bears little relation to their likely longevity. Though I would suggest in general that a $100 pair of shoes is likely to last more than 4 times longer than a $25 pair.
Maxing out your 401k, ibonds, HSA, mega backdoor Roth. Having extra money to buy the current market dip we are in.
> Maxing out your 401k
That's a political choice made in the US not nothing inherent.
And I don't have any idea what most of these other things are.
And determining if something is a 'dip' is just stock speculation.
That's a political choice made in the US not nothing inherent.
And I don't have any idea what most of these other things are.
And determining if something is a 'dip' is just stock speculation.
> I don't have any idea what most of these other things are
It's what a poor person would invests in. There is great truth in your comment. We are ignorant of opportunities available to those in higher classes. Tax tricks, off shore businesses, multi million dollar art collections. I have no idea how these things work but I guarantee you it helps wealthy people build more wealth through opportunities not available to the poor.
It's what a poor person would invests in. There is great truth in your comment. We are ignorant of opportunities available to those in higher classes. Tax tricks, off shore businesses, multi million dollar art collections. I have no idea how these things work but I guarantee you it helps wealthy people build more wealth through opportunities not available to the poor.
I'm not American so some of those things I don't know about because they just don't exist in the same way or I know them by different names.
You don't need to be rich to make reasonableness investment choices with your limited savings.
Tax tricks are less important or impactful if you are poor. However I agree that the tax system is not helping. Moving to a simple tax system would be good for everybody. Payroll taxes are regressive for example.
Most middle class people don't have off-shore accounts, and we are comparing the poor to the middle class, not to the super rich. The same goes for art collections.
Those are things that make the super-rich different form middle class, they don't prevent poor people from becoming more affluent.
You don't need to be rich to make reasonableness investment choices with your limited savings.
Tax tricks are less important or impactful if you are poor. However I agree that the tax system is not helping. Moving to a simple tax system would be good for everybody. Payroll taxes are regressive for example.
Most middle class people don't have off-shore accounts, and we are comparing the poor to the middle class, not to the super rich. The same goes for art collections.
Those are things that make the super-rich different form middle class, they don't prevent poor people from becoming more affluent.
> Most middle class people don't have off-shore accounts,
That's my point. Just like poor people don't have enough space in their apartments to store bulk goods. The cost of being poor is invariant to your wealth. It's asking the wrong question.
That's my point. Just like poor people don't have enough space in their apartments to store bulk goods. The cost of being poor is invariant to your wealth. It's asking the wrong question.
Buying in bulk is typically cheaper and can be of even more benefit if there is a sale by buying enough to last until the next sale.
Yes but when you have a small apartment living space you can't have months worth of food stored.
Taking short term opportunity of sales of singular items makes sense. I often buy meat depending on what's for sale, but not months worth.
Maybe once in a while you can buy bulk for dry-store items like pasta or rice.
Taking short term opportunity of sales of singular items makes sense. I often buy meat depending on what's for sale, but not months worth.
Maybe once in a while you can buy bulk for dry-store items like pasta or rice.
That's the point though - richer people with larger houses and sufficient refrigeration space at least have the option to save money by buying in bulk. Then again, richer people need a way of signaling their wealth to others so will typically by more "premium" products, so the two effects largely cancel each other out (as it is, the stats certainly don't show that the rich spend absolutely less on food than the poor - but certainly a significantly lower % of their income).
Having to buy a larger house, a larger refrigerate, a larger transport vehicle to get the option to potentially buy in bulk. When in effect what they actually do, and data shows this, they buy to much perishables and then throw them away.
So I can buy that yes, there some potential places where this theory could potentially apply.
However, if you derive a social theory from these effects, I would like to see some evidence of this effect being really large.
Compare that with the land use situation I keep bringing up, we have prove and had it for a long time that density and walkability does massively reduce the living cost of poor. This was modled in detail for California for example:
This video shows the results of some modeling done for California by a famous urban planner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUtdFbK4YG4
So I can buy that yes, there some potential places where this theory could potentially apply.
However, if you derive a social theory from these effects, I would like to see some evidence of this effect being really large.
Compare that with the land use situation I keep bringing up, we have prove and had it for a long time that density and walkability does massively reduce the living cost of poor. This was modled in detail for California for example:
This video shows the results of some modeling done for California by a famous urban planner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUtdFbK4YG4
They just gave you a real-world example, umbrellas...
I have lived for decades in an very rainy country and almost never use an umbrella.
Umbrellas often get left behind in bars and are available for cheap second hand, sometimes even free. I have one, that I almost never use but I had it for 5+ years and it was many years old before that and it looks like a really cheap model and its still usable.
So sorry, I don't buy a social theory based on higher quality umbrellas being not affordable. Specially for an item that isn't actually required. A cheap umbrella can still last years.
If you could built a real social theory based on this concept, then it should be easy to list lots of things that are really high impact, not umbrellas that are a vanishingly small portion of spending.
Umbrellas often get left behind in bars and are available for cheap second hand, sometimes even free. I have one, that I almost never use but I had it for 5+ years and it was many years old before that and it looks like a really cheap model and its still usable.
So sorry, I don't buy a social theory based on higher quality umbrellas being not affordable. Specially for an item that isn't actually required. A cheap umbrella can still last years.
If you could built a real social theory based on this concept, then it should be easy to list lots of things that are really high impact, not umbrellas that are a vanishingly small portion of spending.
^ this is a perfect example of how smart people are typically more prone to rationalization than others.
We could paraphrase the above as "the cheap version will last as long as the expensive version if you just don't use the cheap version!".
While technically true, it's also not useful.
We could paraphrase the above as "the cheap version will last as long as the expensive version if you just don't use the cheap version!".
While technically true, it's also not useful.
Manufacturing has gotten substantially better even in the last thirty years - things that used to be absolute crap at the low end are usually good enough to be thrown out before they wear out.
Two cases where it can still apply are toys (Lego lasts forever even if some pieces get lost/broken but damn is it spendy) and things like https://saddlebackleather.com/mens-leather-backpacks/ - I have one that has lasted 10+ years so far and none of the previous Walmart specials lasted more than three years. Could a middle ground be found? Sure.
Another example these days might be energy related - if you’re “well off” you can afford to get a well insulated house with solar and such to offset future energy costs.
Two cases where it can still apply are toys (Lego lasts forever even if some pieces get lost/broken but damn is it spendy) and things like https://saddlebackleather.com/mens-leather-backpacks/ - I have one that has lasted 10+ years so far and none of the previous Walmart specials lasted more than three years. Could a middle ground be found? Sure.
Another example these days might be energy related - if you’re “well off” you can afford to get a well insulated house with solar and such to offset future energy costs.
Talking about backpacks, its quite funny, like 12-14 years ago the local super-market Migros ran this promotion for a backpack, it was super cheap and an incredibly amount of people had them.
I still see those quite often. Now it could be that the same model was sold later. I had mine for many years and used it daily. And to be honest I could have continued using it but we were rich enough that my mother simply bought another one.
Cheap backpacks go for 30$, so even replacing them every 3 years isn't a bad deal compared to the 600$ backpack that lasts 10$+.
> Another example these days might be energy related - if you’re “well off” you can afford to get a well insulated house with solar and such to offset future energy costs.
The most effective way to reduce energy cost is to have a smaller living space and not drive a car. Also, instead of lots of heating, you can heat to lower home temperature and wear layers.
Now for the really poor in cold climates heating is certainty an issue sometimes and state welfare should be provided for those that can't afford that.
I still see those quite often. Now it could be that the same model was sold later. I had mine for many years and used it daily. And to be honest I could have continued using it but we were rich enough that my mother simply bought another one.
Cheap backpacks go for 30$, so even replacing them every 3 years isn't a bad deal compared to the 600$ backpack that lasts 10$+.
> Another example these days might be energy related - if you’re “well off” you can afford to get a well insulated house with solar and such to offset future energy costs.
The most effective way to reduce energy cost is to have a smaller living space and not drive a car. Also, instead of lots of heating, you can heat to lower home temperature and wear layers.
Now for the really poor in cold climates heating is certainty an issue sometimes and state welfare should be provided for those that can't afford that.
I am assuming you never heard of "I'm not rich enough to buy cheap shoes" or some variation of that and this doesn't intuitively make sense for you. And I hope this doesn't come off like I'm mansplaining or smartsplaining or whatever :)
- Renting in San Francisco and New York. $$$ gets you way bigger and better places than $. It's not thrice the value. It's over 5x the value. This becomes very obvious as you move up the salary ladder.
- To plagiarise a Reddit post on this exact topic (which the OP article was plagirising but...) "poor people can't buy in bulk, so they never get to enjoy the savings of Costco"
- A whole cow costs less than the sum of the prices of its parts. Same applies to poultry and fish. Vegetables seem to have a linear price to amount ratio but that's largely priced in way earlier so it's kind of an illusion.
There is no evil force at work. Simple economics really.
- Economics of scale. This probably applies so widely that it's hard to overstate. e.g. Costco, better boot, whole cow. There are fixed costs to transport, customs, maintaining a store, sales people etc. Cheap stuff has to sacrifice quality so you come back more often - frequent enough to help with the fixed costs.
- Money today > money tomorrow. Not sure if there is an economic principle behind this because it doesn't always hold, but everyone except banks believe it always holds. Maybe because we believe we can invest it real good, or we enjoy the security of it (unless you're better than banks at collecting and/or selling debt). E.g. rent in SF. It takes longer to find tenants for $$$ apartments. And landlords lose more money when they let $$$ apartments sit empty. So, they can't expect to charge 2x the rent for 2x the square footage. Usually 2x the rent offers >= 2x square footage AND more amenities.
Apologies for errors. Had to write this on mobile.
- Renting in San Francisco and New York. $$$ gets you way bigger and better places than $. It's not thrice the value. It's over 5x the value. This becomes very obvious as you move up the salary ladder.
- To plagiarise a Reddit post on this exact topic (which the OP article was plagirising but...) "poor people can't buy in bulk, so they never get to enjoy the savings of Costco"
- A whole cow costs less than the sum of the prices of its parts. Same applies to poultry and fish. Vegetables seem to have a linear price to amount ratio but that's largely priced in way earlier so it's kind of an illusion.
There is no evil force at work. Simple economics really.
- Economics of scale. This probably applies so widely that it's hard to overstate. e.g. Costco, better boot, whole cow. There are fixed costs to transport, customs, maintaining a store, sales people etc. Cheap stuff has to sacrifice quality so you come back more often - frequent enough to help with the fixed costs.
- Money today > money tomorrow. Not sure if there is an economic principle behind this because it doesn't always hold, but everyone except banks believe it always holds. Maybe because we believe we can invest it real good, or we enjoy the security of it (unless you're better than banks at collecting and/or selling debt). E.g. rent in SF. It takes longer to find tenants for $$$ apartments. And landlords lose more money when they let $$$ apartments sit empty. So, they can't expect to charge 2x the rent for 2x the square footage. Usually 2x the rent offers >= 2x square footage AND more amenities.
Apologies for errors. Had to write this on mobile.
Yes but you need to balance these things in the other direction. You are just listing all of the economics of scale, without any of the drawbacks.
First of all about shoes. Yes, as I wrote in another post, some % of society can not even afford a decent pair of shoes, but those people should be on welfare. The question is, how do you make a society where this applies to very few people.
> - Renting in San Francisco and New York. $$$ gets you way bigger and better places than $.
That is questionable, location is the main benefit. Maybe in terms of space. But in terms of getting access to the local job market, local transportation system and access to the local market this isn't the case.
> - A whole cow costs less than the sum of the prices of its parts.
Yes, but unfortunately I can not store a whole cow in my apartment.
Even the poorest people can usually buy a 5kg bag of rice or something like that. Going beyond that and buying a 100kg pack becomes unpractical.
The reality is most middle class people don't shop at Costco. Specially in urban places this simply doesn't make sense. Most shopping is done at the closest local store, because that safes on time and money (and for lots of people gas).
So the idea that rich people are rich because they can go to Cosco and buy 5 years worth of rice is nonsense.
When I go to the shop I'm walking there, in and out and home within 20min flat. Sure if I had a car and if I had the storage space I could drive across town, to the mega store and buy in bulk but that's not actually practical and it also doesn't safe a huge amount of money. I do that once a year for my birthday party.
> There is no evil force at work. Simple economics really.
Yes but you are ignoring the reverse incentive. The need to own a car. The need for a big fridge and lots big storage space. You need a place to put your car, and society might finance that for you with free street parking (should be abolished) or you need to have a garage. Then you need to heat that space and on and on.
And on a society level, you need to build stroads, you need to bring water and other services to those big box stores. You need to have lots and lots of policing for every Walmarket (2 police visits a day on average). Who pays for that? Local property taxes, that guess what you have to pay, and the garage that your car is in has to pay that too.
There is a reason that in most cities in the world and historically most people walk to the closest convenient store that is often not owned by the largest cooperation in the world, but rather by some immigrant family.
The Soivets built their whole society around micro-districts that had everything that you need in them. And among all the dumb shit they did, that actually did was the cost efficient way of doing things.
When you think systematically about what actually cost money and how to account for those costs, and how you can structure a society so that the most amount of people people can live without government welfare, designing a system so that poor people can go to Cosco and buy 3 month worth of grocery to get economics of scale is the exact wrong solution.
But that is exactly the pattern of development encouraged and promoted. Instead of complaining about all the individual issues, high taxes, high transportation cost, high housing cost, high cost for utilizes. These are the trees, but the forest here seems to be missed.
The real economics of scale are in the density and the accessibility of your urban environment, not in the individual buying choice of each consumer.
The idea that poor people are poor because a 50kg bag of rice cheaper per kg, then a 5kg bag of rice is wrong. They are poor because the land use pattern force them (and society) into a long term unhealthy, in-efficient and wasteful form of living.
Do you get where I am coming from?
First of all about shoes. Yes, as I wrote in another post, some % of society can not even afford a decent pair of shoes, but those people should be on welfare. The question is, how do you make a society where this applies to very few people.
> - Renting in San Francisco and New York. $$$ gets you way bigger and better places than $.
That is questionable, location is the main benefit. Maybe in terms of space. But in terms of getting access to the local job market, local transportation system and access to the local market this isn't the case.
> - A whole cow costs less than the sum of the prices of its parts.
Yes, but unfortunately I can not store a whole cow in my apartment.
Even the poorest people can usually buy a 5kg bag of rice or something like that. Going beyond that and buying a 100kg pack becomes unpractical.
The reality is most middle class people don't shop at Costco. Specially in urban places this simply doesn't make sense. Most shopping is done at the closest local store, because that safes on time and money (and for lots of people gas).
So the idea that rich people are rich because they can go to Cosco and buy 5 years worth of rice is nonsense.
When I go to the shop I'm walking there, in and out and home within 20min flat. Sure if I had a car and if I had the storage space I could drive across town, to the mega store and buy in bulk but that's not actually practical and it also doesn't safe a huge amount of money. I do that once a year for my birthday party.
> There is no evil force at work. Simple economics really.
Yes but you are ignoring the reverse incentive. The need to own a car. The need for a big fridge and lots big storage space. You need a place to put your car, and society might finance that for you with free street parking (should be abolished) or you need to have a garage. Then you need to heat that space and on and on.
And on a society level, you need to build stroads, you need to bring water and other services to those big box stores. You need to have lots and lots of policing for every Walmarket (2 police visits a day on average). Who pays for that? Local property taxes, that guess what you have to pay, and the garage that your car is in has to pay that too.
There is a reason that in most cities in the world and historically most people walk to the closest convenient store that is often not owned by the largest cooperation in the world, but rather by some immigrant family.
The Soivets built their whole society around micro-districts that had everything that you need in them. And among all the dumb shit they did, that actually did was the cost efficient way of doing things.
When you think systematically about what actually cost money and how to account for those costs, and how you can structure a society so that the most amount of people people can live without government welfare, designing a system so that poor people can go to Cosco and buy 3 month worth of grocery to get economics of scale is the exact wrong solution.
But that is exactly the pattern of development encouraged and promoted. Instead of complaining about all the individual issues, high taxes, high transportation cost, high housing cost, high cost for utilizes. These are the trees, but the forest here seems to be missed.
The real economics of scale are in the density and the accessibility of your urban environment, not in the individual buying choice of each consumer.
The idea that poor people are poor because a 50kg bag of rice cheaper per kg, then a 5kg bag of rice is wrong. They are poor because the land use pattern force them (and society) into a long term unhealthy, in-efficient and wasteful form of living.
Do you get where I am coming from?
From an example that I watched: He just got out of prison. He had very little money. He bought a cheap car that kept breaking because he couldn't afford payments on a good one, but the repair bills kept costing him. He couldn't pay the car insurance six months in advance, so he had to pay month-by-month, which is more expensive. Those are the ones I remember, but it seems that there were others. It was literally more expensive for him to do things than it was for me to do the same things.
I've had it happen to me quite literally; I've had two pairs of cheap boots not even last a month before the soles detached.
There's always a point of diminishing returns, but it doesn't really make much odds where that is if you've not got the money. If you've only got £20, it doesn't really matter that good long lasting boots can be bought for £50 not £300.
There's always a point of diminishing returns, but it doesn't really make much odds where that is if you've not got the money. If you've only got £20, it doesn't really matter that good long lasting boots can be bought for £50 not £300.
Ok but once we are admitting that you can get really good boots for £50 we are talking about a much smaller part of society.
If you can buy one pair of shoos for £50 and it will last you for years, then the vast majority of society can afford it.
Those that can't should be on social welfare and that should be a small % of the population.
So the question really is how many % of you society requires welfare to live above the poverty level and how can you reduce that number.
One can argue that this effect is real, but I don't think it works as an explanation for poverty.
If you can buy one pair of shoos for £50 and it will last you for years, then the vast majority of society can afford it.
Those that can't should be on social welfare and that should be a small % of the population.
So the question really is how many % of you society requires welfare to live above the poverty level and how can you reduce that number.
One can argue that this effect is real, but I don't think it works as an explanation for poverty.
Housing. Being a homeowner and paying off a mortgage builds your wealth. Renting builds someone else’s.
Buying a house also has a risk: what if your house gets flooded due to a broken pipe two months after you moved in? What if they tricked you and you learnt late that the communal garbage bins are stored under your kitchen window, and the property management doesn't let you move them? When you rent, moving is "cheap" and easy, in comparison.
Also, taking on 30 years of debt is something, that mathematically might make sense, and many people handle it easily, but it's a huge mental burden to others. You take on the risk above, on the assumption that your income is stable for 30 years, but then you break your leg and get fired during corona. I don't have data on this, but 2/3 of the parents of my sister's classmates were divorced, so how do you smartly assume a stable family income for decades while not being naive about it?
This is all for "poor" people, who can't afford the risks mentioned.
Also, taking on 30 years of debt is something, that mathematically might make sense, and many people handle it easily, but it's a huge mental burden to others. You take on the risk above, on the assumption that your income is stable for 30 years, but then you break your leg and get fired during corona. I don't have data on this, but 2/3 of the parents of my sister's classmates were divorced, so how do you smartly assume a stable family income for decades while not being naive about it?
This is all for "poor" people, who can't afford the risks mentioned.
Nations with higher % of home ownership don't actually end up being wealthier or have lower rates of poverty.
And if you have a nation where you have lots of apartments buildings, you can actually buy an apartment if you want. And even as a reasonably poor person you might be able to afford mortgage on a cheapish apartment.
And even if you concede this example, housing is a special category and one the largest expanses. The whole 'boots' analogy suggest this is an everyday situation.
And if you have a nation where you have lots of apartments buildings, you can actually buy an apartment if you want. And even as a reasonably poor person you might be able to afford mortgage on a cheapish apartment.
And even if you concede this example, housing is a special category and one the largest expanses. The whole 'boots' analogy suggest this is an everyday situation.
If by the time you finish paying your mortgage, your home has a literal value of 0, you're not building wealth. This is not a hypothetical, it's like this in Japan. There are reasons to own a home, but wealth is not necessarily one.
Not if you believe /personal finance or the like. Renting would mean you have loads of money to invest because you don’t have to repair your home.
Yeah keep believing that. You sound like a poor person. You are paying to repair the house via your monthly rent payment that has it priced in.
That's you who think like a poor person. For many people on this specific forum, house is not the main source of their wealth. It's their professional services and/or investments. The former benefits greatly from flexibility provided by renting.
Builds your wife's wealth)
Can you explain something to me?
An example is generally a way to solidify or convey an idea.
Why do some people think that attacking the example somehow invalidates the idea?
It's an excerpt from a fantasy book.
An example is generally a way to solidify or convey an idea.
Why do some people think that attacking the example somehow invalidates the idea?
It's an excerpt from a fantasy book.
Yes, I can explain.
Usually when you hear an example, even a bad one, you can easily in your head find many other examples.
In this case however, not only is the example flawed. But also, most other things I can think of don't line up with this idea. Cars for example, a 2nd hand Prius from Toyota is more reliable then a BMW. Most clothing is costed based on style, not functionality. Public transit doesn't line up with this concept. Electronics don't really line up with this concept either.
For food concept also doesn't really seem to work, more expensive food doesn't have better nutritional value. Beef and fancy wild rice isn't better for you then chicken and pasta.
So when you use an example, making it a really good example is generally preferable. And boots I don't think are that great of an example. Specially because most richer people don't buy some fancy shoes and then wear them for years and years.
So if your gone have a whole theory of wealth inequality, then I would hope some better examples exist, but so far I have been unable to think of any.
Housing is the only one that might come close, but housing is always somewhat special and doesn't work that well.
Usually when you hear an example, even a bad one, you can easily in your head find many other examples.
In this case however, not only is the example flawed. But also, most other things I can think of don't line up with this idea. Cars for example, a 2nd hand Prius from Toyota is more reliable then a BMW. Most clothing is costed based on style, not functionality. Public transit doesn't line up with this concept. Electronics don't really line up with this concept either.
For food concept also doesn't really seem to work, more expensive food doesn't have better nutritional value. Beef and fancy wild rice isn't better for you then chicken and pasta.
So when you use an example, making it a really good example is generally preferable. And boots I don't think are that great of an example. Specially because most richer people don't buy some fancy shoes and then wear them for years and years.
So if your gone have a whole theory of wealth inequality, then I would hope some better examples exist, but so far I have been unable to think of any.
Housing is the only one that might come close, but housing is always somewhat special and doesn't work that well.
Food is a perfect example, you've just pigeonholed your thought process to "expensive" meaning "higher perceived quality" but what about quantity?
Let's imagine you're a poorer person with no access to a car. You can still buy the same beans and the same rice but you're paying corner store prices rather than supermarket and you can't buy in bulk because you can't transport the goods home. This is an example of poor people paying more despite having less and it's common.
Let's imagine you're a poorer person with no access to a car. You can still buy the same beans and the same rice but you're paying corner store prices rather than supermarket and you can't buy in bulk because you can't transport the goods home. This is an example of poor people paying more despite having less and it's common.
Ok but to buy in levels bulk you need a car right?
So what's cheaper, buying food in bulk while owning a car. Or buying food at the corner store while not owning a car?
Not to mention that with a cheap second hand bicycle you should be able to reach the same super-market chain that most people drive to and pay the same prices.
And you are also ignoring the storage issue. If you buy in bulk you just pay for the storage cost. The same goes for waste, the US has absurd levels of food waste. The reason, people buy in bulk don't consume it and throw it away. That what you get when you have a culture where people make big trips to big box stores.
Also, what about infrastructure cost. How much infrastructure cost is between your house and that big box store, who pays for that?
Also where do you park the car? Free street parking is clearly society subsidizing the rich, and should be abolished. How much does a garage cost?
In your world the ideal society is one where everybody can drive to Cosco once a month and load a car full with ever possible thing?
So you are complaining on the wrong level. People aren't poor because a corner store is slightly more expensive, they are poor because land use patterns for them and society into ineffective way off live.
So what's cheaper, buying food in bulk while owning a car. Or buying food at the corner store while not owning a car?
Not to mention that with a cheap second hand bicycle you should be able to reach the same super-market chain that most people drive to and pay the same prices.
And you are also ignoring the storage issue. If you buy in bulk you just pay for the storage cost. The same goes for waste, the US has absurd levels of food waste. The reason, people buy in bulk don't consume it and throw it away. That what you get when you have a culture where people make big trips to big box stores.
Also, what about infrastructure cost. How much infrastructure cost is between your house and that big box store, who pays for that?
Also where do you park the car? Free street parking is clearly society subsidizing the rich, and should be abolished. How much does a garage cost?
In your world the ideal society is one where everybody can drive to Cosco once a month and load a car full with ever possible thing?
So you are complaining on the wrong level. People aren't poor because a corner store is slightly more expensive, they are poor because land use patterns for them and society into ineffective way off live.
Rather than explain you keep trying to argue, and what you've done is shown the sheer level of your ignorance.
I know a man who dated a woman in college whose family was so rich she didn't know how to operate a washing machine, the help did that. Her solution to the conundrum was to just buy new clothes. One can imagine that when talking about the "middle class" she probably thinks they're like her except with less money. But you and I can recognize this as existing in an entirely different world than the middle class.
And in that vein, poor is not "middle class but with less money".
We're not talking about buying a corolla off the lot because you can't afford a BMW. We're not talking about buying a 2 year old corolla because you can't afford a BMW either.
We're talking about buying a $300 car that just happens to be a corolla and can't be driven on the highway because it flat doesn't go fast enough to legally do so. We're talking about owning 2 $300 cars to mitigate the risk when one of them inevitably breaks down and the constant repairs as a result causing the TCO of that vehicle to be far greater than the newer model corolla you're comparing it to. We're talking about not being able to afford insurance on one, or both, of those so that you're always in fear of police.
We're talking about the constant need for money for the laundromat because you can't afford to purchase a washer and dryer, or you live in a place where such things aren't even possible.
And if your thought goes anywhere near "well just buy another $300 car when that one breaks down", it means you have zero understanding of what it means to be poor.
I know a man who dated a woman in college whose family was so rich she didn't know how to operate a washing machine, the help did that. Her solution to the conundrum was to just buy new clothes. One can imagine that when talking about the "middle class" she probably thinks they're like her except with less money. But you and I can recognize this as existing in an entirely different world than the middle class.
And in that vein, poor is not "middle class but with less money".
We're not talking about buying a corolla off the lot because you can't afford a BMW. We're not talking about buying a 2 year old corolla because you can't afford a BMW either.
We're talking about buying a $300 car that just happens to be a corolla and can't be driven on the highway because it flat doesn't go fast enough to legally do so. We're talking about owning 2 $300 cars to mitigate the risk when one of them inevitably breaks down and the constant repairs as a result causing the TCO of that vehicle to be far greater than the newer model corolla you're comparing it to. We're talking about not being able to afford insurance on one, or both, of those so that you're always in fear of police.
We're talking about the constant need for money for the laundromat because you can't afford to purchase a washer and dryer, or you live in a place where such things aren't even possible.
And if your thought goes anywhere near "well just buy another $300 car when that one breaks down", it means you have zero understanding of what it means to be poor.
Yes and my point is, if you actually had a society where you didn't need to own a car at all, that is what would actually help poor people. Far more then congrats now you can buy 50kg of rice at once and save 0.05c per kg.
If you actually lived in a society where there are cheap apartments in walking or biking distance from reasonable urban infrastructure and all the job that are there. So that you don't have to pay for your commute, or have some very local public transport.
That is what actually safes real money. That is how people in really poor places, like the Eastern block could reasonably approach a decent standard of living with far lower GDP. They lived in apartments, and had most things they needed close to them.
That is how you systematically can even approach to solving these issues.
If your analysis is restricted to, poor people can't utilize economics of scale on an individual bases, then you have a flawed view of poverty.
Consistently housing cost and transportation cost approach almost 50% of total living cost even for the middle class. And more then that for the poor, add food and you are going 90%+.
So if you can systematically so something to reduce housing cost and transportation cost, then you are actually changing lives on a real scale. Far more then buying food in slightly larger quantities, far more then buying slightly higher quality shoes.
If you actually lived in a society where there are cheap apartments in walking or biking distance from reasonable urban infrastructure and all the job that are there. So that you don't have to pay for your commute, or have some very local public transport.
That is what actually safes real money. That is how people in really poor places, like the Eastern block could reasonably approach a decent standard of living with far lower GDP. They lived in apartments, and had most things they needed close to them.
That is how you systematically can even approach to solving these issues.
If your analysis is restricted to, poor people can't utilize economics of scale on an individual bases, then you have a flawed view of poverty.
Consistently housing cost and transportation cost approach almost 50% of total living cost even for the middle class. And more then that for the poor, add food and you are going 90%+.
So if you can systematically so something to reduce housing cost and transportation cost, then you are actually changing lives on a real scale. Far more then buying food in slightly larger quantities, far more then buying slightly higher quality shoes.
you've moved the goalpost.
Also: If we had a cashless society things would be different, but we don't, so they're not. These what-if's don't actually help the poor.
Also: If we had a cashless society things would be different, but we don't, so they're not. These what-if's don't actually help the poor.
> If we had a cashless society
No idea what cashless has to do with anything ...
70 years of bad urban planning really did hurt the poor and the only way to fix it is to actually fix those issues systematically. Not sure how this is moving the goal post. This is the exact topic we are discussing 'Why it costs so much to be poor'.
And it doesn't actually take that much, a few changes to zoneing law, different usage patterns for existing infrastructure, some extra bus lines and so on. Nothing that is actually crazy or that expensive. These things could have a huge impact already.
Obsessing over minor issues like food bulk buy vs smaller shopping when housing and transportation is the true issue is actually the exact problem.
No idea what cashless has to do with anything ...
70 years of bad urban planning really did hurt the poor and the only way to fix it is to actually fix those issues systematically. Not sure how this is moving the goal post. This is the exact topic we are discussing 'Why it costs so much to be poor'.
And it doesn't actually take that much, a few changes to zoneing law, different usage patterns for existing infrastructure, some extra bus lines and so on. Nothing that is actually crazy or that expensive. These things could have a huge impact already.
Obsessing over minor issues like food bulk buy vs smaller shopping when housing and transportation is the true issue is actually the exact problem.
yes panick21_, you're totally right, fixing the poor people problem is totally easy, if only people would listen to you!
Lol, who is moving the goal posts now. You simply lost the argument.
Nothing completely solves the poor people problem and I have not claimed on doing so. Specially when we talk about thing we do in first world nations, as most people live in places like India and Indonesia and the problems there are actually pretty different.
They lack infrastructure when in the US the problem is actually that there is, to much and it not used effectively.
This articles is about:
> The cost of being poor: Why it costs so much to be poor in America
And I am point out things that are almost universally accepted by urban planning community know-days. It address this specific point, why cost of living are so high in the US for poor people.
Addressing these points would not solve poverty, but it would reduce a huge cost burden from a huge part of the population and would improve living quality substantially.
This was modeled by a famous urban planner for California: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUtdFbK4YG4
Nothing completely solves the poor people problem and I have not claimed on doing so. Specially when we talk about thing we do in first world nations, as most people live in places like India and Indonesia and the problems there are actually pretty different.
They lack infrastructure when in the US the problem is actually that there is, to much and it not used effectively.
This articles is about:
> The cost of being poor: Why it costs so much to be poor in America
And I am point out things that are almost universally accepted by urban planning community know-days. It address this specific point, why cost of living are so high in the US for poor people.
Addressing these points would not solve poverty, but it would reduce a huge cost burden from a huge part of the population and would improve living quality substantially.
This was modeled by a famous urban planner for California: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUtdFbK4YG4
I know this probably isn't worth much, but after reading through most of this thread, I must say I appreciate your efforts to explain the existence of the working poor here. I am probably biased, because you have essentially been representing the way my family was forced to exist for my entire early life (you have no idea how crazy spot on that "$300 car that just happens to be a corolla" example was --core memory unlocked, as they say), but either way, I just thought you should know that your efforts and apparently immense patience in the face of bad faith arguments and willfull ignorance is truly appreciated.
Thank you for saying so.
I have so many car stories from when I was young. Cars that had no floor (you could literally see the street as you drove), to cars that needed 2 people to start (solenoid bolt was stripped so it required someone holding it in place).
I've been driving my current vehicle since 2004 (a corolla, actually) and I plan on driving it for another 15-20 years if I can. The one thing that would convince me to get rid of it is if it started leaking oil. I've just seen too much of that when I was young, constantly putting oil in because it's leaking and it's too expensive to fix.
To this day it feels magical to have a reliable vehicle I know will start when I turn the key. That stuff sticks with you.
I have so many car stories from when I was young. Cars that had no floor (you could literally see the street as you drove), to cars that needed 2 people to start (solenoid bolt was stripped so it required someone holding it in place).
I've been driving my current vehicle since 2004 (a corolla, actually) and I plan on driving it for another 15-20 years if I can. The one thing that would convince me to get rid of it is if it started leaking oil. I've just seen too much of that when I was young, constantly putting oil in because it's leaking and it's too expensive to fix.
To this day it feels magical to have a reliable vehicle I know will start when I turn the key. That stuff sticks with you.
It's not necessarily the case that paying more gives you a longer lasting product. You can pay more for a car and actually end up with the exact opposite, for example. Expensive often means more capacity for things to go wrong. The one thing that guarantees poor purchasing is thinking rules like 'it costs more, and is thus less likely to break' always, or even mostly, apply.
The automotive equivalent to the cheap pair of boots is a beater off craigslist, not a cheaper new car from the dealer. It’s not a choice between a Toyota and an entry level BMW but between a 20 year old gas guzzler that can break down at any time and an eight year old entry level sedan from a used car dealer (or whatever the age cutoff is for used car loans).
If you have a good credit score you can put down a few thousand on a down payment and get a Toyota Corolla with 50k miles for $10-15k that is likely to last for another 200k miles without major repair. If you don’t have a good credit score, the most that downpayment will buy you without a loan is a total crapshoot that can break down and total itself at any time.
If you have a good credit score you can put down a few thousand on a down payment and get a Toyota Corolla with 50k miles for $10-15k that is likely to last for another 200k miles without major repair. If you don’t have a good credit score, the most that downpayment will buy you without a loan is a total crapshoot that can break down and total itself at any time.
I'm not really sure why you appear to have been downvoted because your point is fine. I don't entirely disagree with this. If you're in the market for nothing but lemons, and those lemons are essential, you are fairly screwed unless you can get someone else to help you (e.g. family, government).
The ability to pay more gives you more choice and thus, in general, the option of buying better products. Of course, you can also use the extra choice to choose wrong.
Reminds me how my mother used to say that we’re not rich enough to buy cheap things. I think it must be some proverb somewhere, but I only ever heard it from her.
Makes me feel pretty privileged to follow the "Buy the cheap one, if it breaks buy the expensive one" mantra.
And what makes things hard is that sometimes the cheap one is good enough for use you will ever get. Think of something like home renovation tools. Doing thing one time, even if badly might be enough. Not that nicer tools wouldn't do it faster, easier and better. Though price difference can be huge.
It’s quite common.
I heard exact same anecdote about boots from my grandfather loooong time ago. It’s possible that author hadn’t had chance to hear in “in the wild”.
I believe it’s one of those wisdoms passed from generation to generation.
I heard exact same anecdote about boots from my grandfather loooong time ago. It’s possible that author hadn’t had chance to hear in “in the wild”.
I believe it’s one of those wisdoms passed from generation to generation.
I believe this was a marketing strategy of some boots maker that went viral
I was curious and decided to check - there’s Wikipedia page about it. Looks like it Pratchett wasn’t first and took from general wisdom but that specific anecdote was popularized by the book.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
If you don't have the money to buy it once, you definitely don't have it to buy twice.
My (Polish) grandfather used to say that too. I’d guess it’s either a Polish or a Yiddish proverb.
That's uniquely masculine perspective. No woman I know of would agree to wear the same boots for ten years straight.
[deleted]
This is a very niche text book example. If you want to make this point you need a real world example. And prove that poor people are diligently spending those $10.
Nope. It does not. I've read this many times, and it isn't true. Not in reality, as opposed to the theory it states. It is completely wrong. Not always, but mostly.
I went to the dollar store today looking for stocking stuffer items. It's now the "dollar twenty-five store" due to inflation, with some items four and five dollars.
Here are my observations.
* The food will likely make you sick if you eat it regularly, the food options are highly processed and made of cheap, poor quality ingredients.
* Kids, lots of kids. Lots of lower income families have multiple kids and the dollar store is one way to stretch the budget.
* Dollar stores do a decent job at keeping things at $1.25. There were definitely some products that I would see 2x or 3x the price at other stores.
* It was busy, very busy.
Here are my observations.
* The food will likely make you sick if you eat it regularly, the food options are highly processed and made of cheap, poor quality ingredients.
* Kids, lots of kids. Lots of lower income families have multiple kids and the dollar store is one way to stretch the budget.
* Dollar stores do a decent job at keeping things at $1.25. There were definitely some products that I would see 2x or 3x the price at other stores.
* It was busy, very busy.
Nutritious food can be very cheap. Others have mentioned beans and rice. Beans are an amazing source of nutrition. Dried beans are dirt cheap and require little work to prepare. Organic bananas from Whole Foods are about $0.50 each. I'm pretty sure you can find a cheaper banana elsewhere. Broccoli costs less than a $1 per head, typically. Organic rainbow carrots are $1.50 a pound. I could go on.
The point is, good food can be cheap. And yes, food deserts exist. And yes, people buy poor quality food from stores like Dollar General. But perhaps there is a correlation here? Maybe (some) food deserts exists because there is little demand for fresh food in those regions.
The point is, good food can be cheap. And yes, food deserts exist. And yes, people buy poor quality food from stores like Dollar General. But perhaps there is a correlation here? Maybe (some) food deserts exists because there is little demand for fresh food in those regions.
As mentioned in the article, some low income housing units literally don’t have kitchens or don’t allow cooking.
This blew my mind and is a facet of poverty I hadn’t even considered.
Also, are you actually making the point that food deserts exist because all the people in the area just decided not to buy groceries? I haven’t read such a blatant “blame the poors for their situation” take in a while.
This blew my mind and is a facet of poverty I hadn’t even considered.
Also, are you actually making the point that food deserts exist because all the people in the area just decided not to buy groceries? I haven’t read such a blatant “blame the poors for their situation” take in a while.
If you've really fallen out of society and gone through an eviction or foreclosure then your credit is shot so badly you can only afford to live at a weekly rate motel (you'll never pass a real apartment's credit check). Those places don't have or allow any kind of cooking. A mini fridge and a microwave that's hopefully still working is all you have.
Good point. I hadn’t considered that type of housing.
It got me thinking though. My partner got evicted when she was younger (early twenties) because her roommate was lying and stealing rent money. Her credit was shot and she had to live with family for years while getting her record cleared. It’s sad to think that if she hadn’t had family to fall back on, she could’ve ended up in that situation. More people than one would think are just one bad situation away from falling into that trap.
It got me thinking though. My partner got evicted when she was younger (early twenties) because her roommate was lying and stealing rent money. Her credit was shot and she had to live with family for years while getting her record cleared. It’s sad to think that if she hadn’t had family to fall back on, she could’ve ended up in that situation. More people than one would think are just one bad situation away from falling into that trap.
> More people than one would think are just one bad situation away from falling into that trap.
This is a great point to keep in mind. I think a lot of folks are blind to how fragile financial stability is in the US and how much of a role luck plays in all of this.
This is a great point to keep in mind. I think a lot of folks are blind to how fragile financial stability is in the US and how much of a role luck plays in all of this.
> Those places don't have or allow any kind of cooking. A mini fridge and a microwave that's hopefully still working is all you have.
The ones I see around here[1] specifically advertise having full kitchens. Both on their local signage and on their website.
[1] https://www.extendedstayamerica.com/
The ones I see around here[1] specifically advertise having full kitchens. Both on their local signage and on their website.
[1] https://www.extendedstayamerica.com/
> The ones I see around here[1] specifically advertise having full kitchens. Both on their local signage and on their website.
Those are relatively nice weekly/monthly hotels. That's not where the desperately poor go. There are ~$30/night extended stay motels but the quality is what you'd expect. No fridge, no cooking, heat/AC doesn't work, very filty.
Those are relatively nice weekly/monthly hotels. That's not where the desperately poor go. There are ~$30/night extended stay motels but the quality is what you'd expect. No fridge, no cooking, heat/AC doesn't work, very filty.
And there is zero wrong with a microwave and mini fridge. I personally don't see an issue with that. I've had to do that in the distant past, it was no problem at all, not at all.
It's only a problem if you want to be Bill Gates lifestyle while making $15K per year.
It's only a problem if you want to be Bill Gates lifestyle while making $15K per year.
You can make anything in a microwave. There is no way that they don't allow microwaves. And I personally just bought a microwave from craigslist for $15, and it was almost brand new. The buttons that you press the time in still had the plastic covering on it.
Same with fridges - can buy a used one for super inexpensive - a small one, to be sure, but at least you have something. Or could buy two of them over time.
There are always solutions.
There are no such thing as food deserts. I've seen the maps, and yes, there are areas that don't have large grocery stores. BUT, there are good grocery stores 5 or 8 miles away. If you have a car, you drive there. If you don't, you find someone who has a car to drive you there and carry inexpensive groceries back. Could be a neighbor, a church, yeah, it will take a little extra work, but so what? My family member lived way in the rural area and had to take a 1 hour trip each way to Costco once a month to stock up on staples. They took the time, why can't everyone else. Except they had to drive 60 miles, not 5 or 8 miles.
There are always easy solutions.
Unfortunately, I think I'm the only person in the known universe that knows the solutions.
Same with fridges - can buy a used one for super inexpensive - a small one, to be sure, but at least you have something. Or could buy two of them over time.
There are always solutions.
There are no such thing as food deserts. I've seen the maps, and yes, there are areas that don't have large grocery stores. BUT, there are good grocery stores 5 or 8 miles away. If you have a car, you drive there. If you don't, you find someone who has a car to drive you there and carry inexpensive groceries back. Could be a neighbor, a church, yeah, it will take a little extra work, but so what? My family member lived way in the rural area and had to take a 1 hour trip each way to Costco once a month to stock up on staples. They took the time, why can't everyone else. Except they had to drive 60 miles, not 5 or 8 miles.
There are always easy solutions.
Unfortunately, I think I'm the only person in the known universe that knows the solutions.
No, you aren't the only one who knows the solutions.
> microwaves
Many cheap motels do not in fact have microwaves. Buying one for $15 is great if you live in a place where people are selling working microwaves for that price and eveyrone else is not also poor and looking for a microwave.
> They took the time, why can't everyone else.
Not if you're working 3 jobs and barely have time to sleep while being a caregiver. Some people don't get to take time off to do things.
> There are no such thing as food deserts. I've seen the maps, and yes, there are areas that don't have large grocery stores.
Perhaps talk to someone who'se lived in one? There's quite a lot of arrogance to say "I've looked at the maps so your problem doesn't exist" from wherever you're based on earth.
There are solutions in many situations but the cycle is vicious and you're one bad step away from getting eating alive in many places. Poor nutrition -> health problems -> limited time -> getting laid off for underperformance (or plain cruelty). It isn't always a way out in life without a dollop of luck.
> microwaves
Many cheap motels do not in fact have microwaves. Buying one for $15 is great if you live in a place where people are selling working microwaves for that price and eveyrone else is not also poor and looking for a microwave.
> They took the time, why can't everyone else.
Not if you're working 3 jobs and barely have time to sleep while being a caregiver. Some people don't get to take time off to do things.
> There are no such thing as food deserts. I've seen the maps, and yes, there are areas that don't have large grocery stores.
Perhaps talk to someone who'se lived in one? There's quite a lot of arrogance to say "I've looked at the maps so your problem doesn't exist" from wherever you're based on earth.
There are solutions in many situations but the cycle is vicious and you're one bad step away from getting eating alive in many places. Poor nutrition -> health problems -> limited time -> getting laid off for underperformance (or plain cruelty). It isn't always a way out in life without a dollop of luck.
I personally work with a woman that has 5 children and works 2 fulltime jobs. Her husband used to do all the work but he died of health issue 3 years ago. She does have her mother and sister to help her with her children. But when I talk to her about this, she understands and agrees with what I say and does it.
I'm not saying it is easy - it isn't. But when you are there, you have to do what you have to do.
I think I AM the only one who knows the solution. Because when I was in my 20s, I been there, done that.
I'm not saying it is easy - it isn't. But when you are there, you have to do what you have to do.
I think I AM the only one who knows the solution. Because when I was in my 20s, I been there, done that.
Food deserts occur because we tolerate petty crime in the name of wokeness. I'm seeing this play out in my own inner city neighborhood where grocery stores are talking about closing after the city destaffed police.
The phenomenon was happening before 'wokeness' there are articles from the early 70's talking about the problem - also, intercity america and rural america often have the exact same problems which just manifest in different ways.
Okay, but I'm saying I'm seeing a food desert develop in real time, and the reason today is what I said it was. I don't know about the 70s and 60s in detail. But from what I do know of them, I imagine similar dynamics were at play.
Yeah, and area that was already on the margins slips into poverty for a list of reasons. Grocery stores aren't closing en masse in poor areas. In most cases they've been gone for decades.
Nonsense. City centers were devastated by city planners in the 50/60s and cities in the US were hurt by zoneing regulation.
In fact, if you have good mixed use cities, your city shouldn't even need much policy in the first place.
Safety doesn't come from policy, but civil society. If you are relaying on policy to operate a basic store in a city you know you have big problems already.
And blaming 'wokeness' for the problems of inner cities in the US is crazy.
In fact, if you have good mixed use cities, your city shouldn't even need much policy in the first place.
Safety doesn't come from policy, but civil society. If you are relaying on policy to operate a basic store in a city you know you have big problems already.
And blaming 'wokeness' for the problems of inner cities in the US is crazy.
Yeah, I agree we should be reliant mainly on civil society. Unfortunately, moral relativism means we are not allowed to teach civil virtues in public schools. We see moral panic over things like our own government institutions (Smithsonian, for example) labeling virtues such as promptness as relics of colonialism and whiteness. You're not going to be able to have a moral civil society if your ideology associates all virtues with particular races.
There is one more fact, grocery stores like large format locations, and those are very hard to find, even the older Safeway 'Marina' style stores (and similar other designs) are too small by modern standards, and both not economical to operate as well as too small to carry the standard product mix.
It sucks that your grocery stores are closing, but I would be pissed at the store owners if that was the reason they gave. It sounds like they didn’t want to pay their own security/loss-prevention staff, so they had the taxpayers foot the bill.
"Wokeness" is the just this century's "politically correct", except almost no one has ever seriously talked about respecting being 'woke' in the context you're talking about.
Yes they have. I gave you an example of my city of Portland, OR whose policies resulted in a major destaffing of the police department by city policy.
This is blatantly false. The Portland Police have more funding now than ever.
My argument is that nutritious, affordable food exists. We live in a capitalist society. Where there exists demand for a good, supply materializes.
I'm open to other interpretations. But I would need a compelling, non-demand reason why affordable food, which exists in surplus elsewhere, can't be sold in certain neighborhoods.
I'm open to other interpretations. But I would need a compelling, non-demand reason why affordable food, which exists in surplus elsewhere, can't be sold in certain neighborhoods.
You're collapsing "demand" into "they must not want it" instead of "the size of the demand doesn't match the minimal demand needed for the economics."
Grocery stores are very low-margin. They basically only work at scale. You need a lot of space, and a lot of customers. Those two factors combine to eliminate numerous areas where demand for the product otherwise exists. Not enough customers and/or not enough physical space available.
And constrained by either space, or customer count, you've got some hard choices to make.
Produce, fruit, fresh meat, etc are not high-profit items for grocery stores (They're often high-margin, but spoilage destroys net profit). You need a certain amount of turn-over to make the math work.
On top of turn-over, you need to be selling a lot of high-profit goods to make up for all the offsets in a grocery business. In low-income neighborhoods, how many customers will you have for deli products with high-markups? Or Prepared Foods? Hell, with EBT rules, a lot of high-margin goods can't even be bought by your core customer. You can't buy alcohol with EBT, for instance, and that's a huge chunk of profit for modern grocery stores.
And without all those healthy margin items, your labor costs need to be incredibly low.
What are you left with? Shelf-stable, low-quantity, bulk-purchased items in a densely packed store with the lowest possible labor costs.
And what is a Dollar Store?
Grocery stores are very low-margin. They basically only work at scale. You need a lot of space, and a lot of customers. Those two factors combine to eliminate numerous areas where demand for the product otherwise exists. Not enough customers and/or not enough physical space available.
And constrained by either space, or customer count, you've got some hard choices to make.
Produce, fruit, fresh meat, etc are not high-profit items for grocery stores (They're often high-margin, but spoilage destroys net profit). You need a certain amount of turn-over to make the math work.
On top of turn-over, you need to be selling a lot of high-profit goods to make up for all the offsets in a grocery business. In low-income neighborhoods, how many customers will you have for deli products with high-markups? Or Prepared Foods? Hell, with EBT rules, a lot of high-margin goods can't even be bought by your core customer. You can't buy alcohol with EBT, for instance, and that's a huge chunk of profit for modern grocery stores.
And without all those healthy margin items, your labor costs need to be incredibly low.
What are you left with? Shelf-stable, low-quantity, bulk-purchased items in a densely packed store with the lowest possible labor costs.
And what is a Dollar Store?
The US perspective is trong here.
> Grocery stores are very low-margin. They basically only work at scale.
> You need a lot of space, and a lot of customers.
That contradicts most of human history and is still wrong today.
In fact for most of history most people walked to a small store that had some fresh products outside and you just pick them up.
The problem is that in the US you force stores into these commercial zones that are separated from housing zones and force people to drive there.
Countries that are much poorer then the US have systems where almost everybody can get pretty easy access to a store and that store usually had fresh products.
Me and a friend walk threw some back allies in Haifa Israel and walked right up to a little store with some fresh fruit and most of what you need. Yet, such stores don't exist in US suberbia.
These are all urban planning issues.
> Grocery stores are very low-margin. They basically only work at scale.
> You need a lot of space, and a lot of customers.
That contradicts most of human history and is still wrong today.
In fact for most of history most people walked to a small store that had some fresh products outside and you just pick them up.
The problem is that in the US you force stores into these commercial zones that are separated from housing zones and force people to drive there.
Countries that are much poorer then the US have systems where almost everybody can get pretty easy access to a store and that store usually had fresh products.
Me and a friend walk threw some back allies in Haifa Israel and walked right up to a little store with some fresh fruit and most of what you need. Yet, such stores don't exist in US suberbia.
These are all urban planning issues.
> Yet, such stores don't exist in US suberbia.
I'm living here in US suburbia (California) and it is literally (measured using google maps) 600ft to the nearest store that sells some groceries and 1300ft to the nearest full-size supermarket. And the second full-size supermaket is about 2000ft away.
I'm living here in US suburbia (California) and it is literally (measured using google maps) 600ft to the nearest store that sells some groceries and 1300ft to the nearest full-size supermarket. And the second full-size supermaket is about 2000ft away.
That may be the case in your location, but you can go look at zonening maps and its not the case. Many city have 80 or sometimes 90% of R1 zoning where no grocery stores are allowed.
And it also shows up in data showing how many less then 5mile trips are maybe by car in the US and grocery shopping is one of the major drivers of such trips.
And it also shows up in data showing how many less then 5mile trips are maybe by car in the US and grocery shopping is one of the major drivers of such trips.
Living in several areas of US suburbia as well, I was nearing my 30s before I lived in a place with grocery stores that I could even bike to, let alone walk. My quality of life increased drastically when I was finally able to walk/bike to the store. Walkable suburbia exists in the US, but it’s not the norm. Don’t take it for granted :)
> Living in several areas of US suburbia as well, I was nearing my 30s before I lived in a place with grocery stores that I could even bike to, let alone walk.
I read this a lot so I believe it, but haven't really experienced it. I've lived in a couple places on the east coast and multiple places in California and only once there hasn't been one or more supermarkets within walking distance. And that one place was quite rural so it was not comparable to any suburbs.
I read this a lot so I believe it, but haven't really experienced it. I've lived in a couple places on the east coast and multiple places in California and only once there hasn't been one or more supermarkets within walking distance. And that one place was quite rural so it was not comparable to any suburbs.
Sorry, yes, everything I said is mostly relevant in the US, and is the only country/culture I can speak to with anything resembling authority.
I know things are much different elsewhere.
I know things are much different elsewhere.
>The problem is that in the US you force stores into these commercial zones that are separated from housing zones and force people to drive there.
Yeah, but this is just an inconvenience. There is no reason why there should be an issue to drive 1 or 2 or 8 miles to get a good deal on healthy food. Even if you don't have a car, find a friend or church that does.
As I've said elsewhere, my relatives lived in the middle of nowhere, and had to travel 60 miles - an hour and a half each way - to go to the Costco to stock up on staples.
You have to drive for 15 minutes to a grocery store??? Oh, misery. The world is coming to an end.
We need to get someone here to peel my grapes and feed them to me, place them in my mouth one-by-one so that I have to do nothing. I just want to be treated as a Roman emperor, I live in the USA...isn't that everyone's right?
Yeah, but this is just an inconvenience. There is no reason why there should be an issue to drive 1 or 2 or 8 miles to get a good deal on healthy food. Even if you don't have a car, find a friend or church that does.
As I've said elsewhere, my relatives lived in the middle of nowhere, and had to travel 60 miles - an hour and a half each way - to go to the Costco to stock up on staples.
You have to drive for 15 minutes to a grocery store??? Oh, misery. The world is coming to an end.
We need to get someone here to peel my grapes and feed them to me, place them in my mouth one-by-one so that I have to do nothing. I just want to be treated as a Roman emperor, I live in the USA...isn't that everyone's right?
Needing community support to buy 1kg of carrots is kind of insane.
> As I've said elsewhere, my relatives lived in the middle of nowhere, and had to travel 60 miles - an hour and a half each way - to go to the Costco to stock up on staples.
That's a very exceptional situation and not really representative of how most people live.
> You have to drive for 15 minutes to a grocery store??? Oh, misery. The world is coming to an end.
Well yes, polluting the world with inefficient land use forcing 100s of millions to drive everytime they want to buy milk is a problem.
This is specially a problem when you can only go when you don't have to work and maybe at those time there is also traffic. So you only go once a week or every 2 weeks, meaning you end up buying less perishable foods.
15min, lol, in 15min I walk to the shop, buy something and I'm back home already.
Also, simply complaining that people are how they are isn't helpful, its just a reality of the situation. You can either have an urban planning and infrastructure policy that supports what makes people lives better, or you don't.
> As I've said elsewhere, my relatives lived in the middle of nowhere, and had to travel 60 miles - an hour and a half each way - to go to the Costco to stock up on staples.
That's a very exceptional situation and not really representative of how most people live.
> You have to drive for 15 minutes to a grocery store??? Oh, misery. The world is coming to an end.
Well yes, polluting the world with inefficient land use forcing 100s of millions to drive everytime they want to buy milk is a problem.
This is specially a problem when you can only go when you don't have to work and maybe at those time there is also traffic. So you only go once a week or every 2 weeks, meaning you end up buying less perishable foods.
15min, lol, in 15min I walk to the shop, buy something and I'm back home already.
Also, simply complaining that people are how they are isn't helpful, its just a reality of the situation. You can either have an urban planning and infrastructure policy that supports what makes people lives better, or you don't.
As long as I can have someone peeling my grapes and feeding them to my\e one at a time, I'll be happy. I just cannot be incovenienced, it is the right of all Americans.
I really don't understand your attitude or even the point you are trying.
You act like suberbia exists without infrastructure and to support the live-style you advocate nothing needs to happen, its just free.
And what I am advocating is somehow a privilege that all Americans should be granted and this privilege is a luxury.
This is the exact opposite. A society driving every time they have to buy basic items, large roads connecting to even larger connecting roads connecting to absurdly huge parking lots going into gigantic grocery store to buy basic food comes at an absurd cost.
Please actually inform yourself on the cost of those infrastructures, there is a reason most US towns are basically bankrupt. Why so many roads in the US are falling apart, because you simply can't afford it with the property taxes the city produces. The amount of infrastructure required here is a gigantic privilege and the results can be seen in places like Detroit.
However the more dense mixed use development I advocate for is actually a huge efficient. Its less pollution, produces more taxes then it consumes, less traffic and so on.
There are good data visualization that prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, check out Urban3 (they have lots of resources on YT and other places presenting these results to cites): https://www.urbanthree.com/
You act like suberbia exists without infrastructure and to support the live-style you advocate nothing needs to happen, its just free.
And what I am advocating is somehow a privilege that all Americans should be granted and this privilege is a luxury.
This is the exact opposite. A society driving every time they have to buy basic items, large roads connecting to even larger connecting roads connecting to absurdly huge parking lots going into gigantic grocery store to buy basic food comes at an absurd cost.
Please actually inform yourself on the cost of those infrastructures, there is a reason most US towns are basically bankrupt. Why so many roads in the US are falling apart, because you simply can't afford it with the property taxes the city produces. The amount of infrastructure required here is a gigantic privilege and the results can be seen in places like Detroit.
However the more dense mixed use development I advocate for is actually a huge efficient. Its less pollution, produces more taxes then it consumes, less traffic and so on.
There are good data visualization that prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, check out Urban3 (they have lots of resources on YT and other places presenting these results to cites): https://www.urbanthree.com/
ok.....
You are talking about city infrastructure and stuff that I'm not talking about. If you want to have a utterly completely different conversation about tearing down every single house and every single road, and do a big do-over, I guess we can do that.
But I'm just talking about how poor people can buy a tuna fish sandwich, dude.
You are talking about city infrastructure and stuff that I'm not talking about. If you want to have a utterly completely different conversation about tearing down every single house and every single road, and do a big do-over, I guess we can do that.
But I'm just talking about how poor people can buy a tuna fish sandwich, dude.
Luckily, this is literally the only inconvenience that poor Americans face, and very manageable with all their free time. /s
Growing up, it took us 45 min one-way to drive to the closest grocery store my parents could afford. Thankfully we had enough space in the house to buy in bulk, but unfortunately that doesn’t help you with fresh produce. Did it kill us? No. Was it a shitty way to live? Yes. Even as a kid I recognized the stress it put on my mom.
I now live a mile from a grocery store, so I usually walk or bike there. Shockingly, it’s much easier to stay healthy and regularly eat fresh foods this way.
Growing up, it took us 45 min one-way to drive to the closest grocery store my parents could afford. Thankfully we had enough space in the house to buy in bulk, but unfortunately that doesn’t help you with fresh produce. Did it kill us? No. Was it a shitty way to live? Yes. Even as a kid I recognized the stress it put on my mom.
I now live a mile from a grocery store, so I usually walk or bike there. Shockingly, it’s much easier to stay healthy and regularly eat fresh foods this way.
I don't understand - was this 45 minutes in a car or public transportation like a bus?
If you didn't have a car, make a friend. Find a friend that has a car that you can shop with. It's not that difficult and people like to help other people.
I don't know about your produce, but in my family, we all went to the orchards and picked our own. then we would freeze and can for 2 entire days.
My parents would buy an entire cow (we had a very big family), and hire a butcher to cut it up, and we put all that in two freezers we had in our garage.
Everything can be done, it just takes work and imagination to figure out how. I know, I've been there too.
And as I mentioned elsewhere, many in my family have lived in the middle of nowhere, and had to drive 1 1/2 hours to go to Costco. They did this about once per month and load up on the staples - bulk buying.
Actually, frozen and canned produce is much better nutritionally. This is because the produce is picked at it's peak nutritional value and taste. For fresh produce, a lot of times it is picked early because of transportation times.
I have a bunch of frozen and canned fruits and vegetables, they are great.
I could go on all day about what one can do. But it falls on deaf ears, all the time, like yours. Instead of being open, you shut completely down. Instead of saying, "Wow, how interesting, I don't think it can be done, but I want to know how you do it." But no, you answer with a sarcastic remark, so I know where you are at, mentally. Which is closed down and defensive.
I remember talking to a friend of mine - I told her she should purchase her next pair of prescription glasses at Zenni optical for $15-$40 for frames and lenses. I must have told her at least 6 to 8 times in our conversations, as we saw each other daily. She asked me how to save money, so not like I forced it on her. Well, after all our discussions, she went into a local optomitrist and spend $500+ on her glasses. Trust me, she was poor as f. This is why the poor stay poor. Even when I tried to help, she self sabotages. And this is by far the only person I've had this experience with, people who ask my help, and I give my opinion, and then they go off and blow their money anyways.
The point is that people don't care if you have suggestions of how to make their lives easier. They would rather do it the same way, even if it takes 45 minutes one way instead of finding a friend with a car to carpool with. Again, I don't know if that was your case, but other people have said they can't do anything because they have to ride public transportation.
It is sad, because here I am on this post, offering my assistance, and most of what I'm getting is vitriol, instead of people trying to learn, or even consider what I'm saying and simply ask questions to me as to how it is done.
Sad.
If you didn't have a car, make a friend. Find a friend that has a car that you can shop with. It's not that difficult and people like to help other people.
I don't know about your produce, but in my family, we all went to the orchards and picked our own. then we would freeze and can for 2 entire days.
My parents would buy an entire cow (we had a very big family), and hire a butcher to cut it up, and we put all that in two freezers we had in our garage.
Everything can be done, it just takes work and imagination to figure out how. I know, I've been there too.
And as I mentioned elsewhere, many in my family have lived in the middle of nowhere, and had to drive 1 1/2 hours to go to Costco. They did this about once per month and load up on the staples - bulk buying.
Actually, frozen and canned produce is much better nutritionally. This is because the produce is picked at it's peak nutritional value and taste. For fresh produce, a lot of times it is picked early because of transportation times.
I have a bunch of frozen and canned fruits and vegetables, they are great.
I could go on all day about what one can do. But it falls on deaf ears, all the time, like yours. Instead of being open, you shut completely down. Instead of saying, "Wow, how interesting, I don't think it can be done, but I want to know how you do it." But no, you answer with a sarcastic remark, so I know where you are at, mentally. Which is closed down and defensive.
I remember talking to a friend of mine - I told her she should purchase her next pair of prescription glasses at Zenni optical for $15-$40 for frames and lenses. I must have told her at least 6 to 8 times in our conversations, as we saw each other daily. She asked me how to save money, so not like I forced it on her. Well, after all our discussions, she went into a local optomitrist and spend $500+ on her glasses. Trust me, she was poor as f. This is why the poor stay poor. Even when I tried to help, she self sabotages. And this is by far the only person I've had this experience with, people who ask my help, and I give my opinion, and then they go off and blow their money anyways.
The point is that people don't care if you have suggestions of how to make their lives easier. They would rather do it the same way, even if it takes 45 minutes one way instead of finding a friend with a car to carpool with. Again, I don't know if that was your case, but other people have said they can't do anything because they have to ride public transportation.
It is sad, because here I am on this post, offering my assistance, and most of what I'm getting is vitriol, instead of people trying to learn, or even consider what I'm saying and simply ask questions to me as to how it is done.
Sad.
My guy, your tone and your insistence on the laziness and self-sabotaging tendencies of the poor would lend one to believe that you’re not being entirely altruistic. But fine, benefit of the doubt granted.
Of course it’s possible to eat healthily when poor, and I can appreciate your suggestions, but your example itself has demonstrated that it’s time-consuming and logistically difficult. It’s very fortunate that your family had the money and space to be able to buy in bulk, but you must recognize that this isn’t an option for everyone, especially on a strict budget. It’s also fortunate that your family lived close to orchards and had the space and free time to spend canning foods for later.
Please try to imagine how your solutions would be accomplished by someone who was already struggling with some of the other problems of being poor, such as lack of access to childcare, transportation, and/or medical care. It’s not impossible to manage all these things, but even with the suggestions you’ve provided, it’s another drain on one’s time and energy. Nobody wants that for their friends/family.
Zenni is legit though: quick, cheap, and passable quality. I tell everyone about them too. Weird that your friend didn’t decide to use them. I wonder if her optometrist warned her against the competition?
Of course it’s possible to eat healthily when poor, and I can appreciate your suggestions, but your example itself has demonstrated that it’s time-consuming and logistically difficult. It’s very fortunate that your family had the money and space to be able to buy in bulk, but you must recognize that this isn’t an option for everyone, especially on a strict budget. It’s also fortunate that your family lived close to orchards and had the space and free time to spend canning foods for later.
Please try to imagine how your solutions would be accomplished by someone who was already struggling with some of the other problems of being poor, such as lack of access to childcare, transportation, and/or medical care. It’s not impossible to manage all these things, but even with the suggestions you’ve provided, it’s another drain on one’s time and energy. Nobody wants that for their friends/family.
Zenni is legit though: quick, cheap, and passable quality. I tell everyone about them too. Weird that your friend didn’t decide to use them. I wonder if her optometrist warned her against the competition?
This sounds very smart, but essentially what you're saying is that there isn't enough demand to support a store that sells fresh produce.
Yes, the ability to profitably run a store is based off of margin and volume. Both of those are driven by demand.
Yes, the ability to profitably run a store is based off of margin and volume. Both of those are driven by demand.
I'm being explicit about what "demand" means, and how the economics of grocery stores intersect with things like physical space, infrastructure, government regulation, etc. lest someone think "there's not enough demand" means "poor people just don't want affordable, nutritious food."
There can be plenty of demand for a quality grocery store, but not enough square footage available to support a store that sells the volume and mix of goods necessary to create a profitable business.
There can be plenty of square footage, and relatively high demand but not enough literal humans in the area to support it.
And there can be enough space, and enough people, but infrastructure problems which create uneven costs on the business.
There can be plenty of demand for a quality grocery store, but not enough square footage available to support a store that sells the volume and mix of goods necessary to create a profitable business.
There can be plenty of square footage, and relatively high demand but not enough literal humans in the area to support it.
And there can be enough space, and enough people, but infrastructure problems which create uneven costs on the business.
I understand what you're saying, but, a priori, how can you say the existence of food deserts is because of reason X vs. Y.
For instance, the poorest Americans drink the most sugary drinks [0]. I can accept there may be other reasons for the existence of food deserts, but to outright dismiss that preferences might differ across incomes without any evidence feels like an argument made purely out of ideology.
[0]: https://theconversation.com/poorest-americans-drink-a-lot-mo...
For instance, the poorest Americans drink the most sugary drinks [0]. I can accept there may be other reasons for the existence of food deserts, but to outright dismiss that preferences might differ across incomes without any evidence feels like an argument made purely out of ideology.
[0]: https://theconversation.com/poorest-americans-drink-a-lot-mo...
Growing up poor, my house and the houses of my friends basically had three options – milk, sugary drinks and water. And milk was rationed like it was war.
Sugary drinks are cheap, shelf-stable and dense with calories.
When you don't have a lot of better options for calories, they fit the bill. It's not preference, it's survival.
We know that despite the difference in sugary drink consumption, obesity doesn't vary in population sets [0]:
"… evidence from 4 nationally representative US surveys has shown that populations who frequently consume sugar-sweetened beverages do not have a higher obesity rate or risk than populations who infrequently consume these beverages."
… which makes sense if sugary drinks are replacing calories that would otherwise be found in better foods.
I'd recommend spending some time with working-class people before adopting any belief which treats them as fundamentally different than higher-income people in terms of preferences.
[0]:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957908/
Sugary drinks are cheap, shelf-stable and dense with calories.
When you don't have a lot of better options for calories, they fit the bill. It's not preference, it's survival.
We know that despite the difference in sugary drink consumption, obesity doesn't vary in population sets [0]:
"… evidence from 4 nationally representative US surveys has shown that populations who frequently consume sugar-sweetened beverages do not have a higher obesity rate or risk than populations who infrequently consume these beverages."
… which makes sense if sugary drinks are replacing calories that would otherwise be found in better foods.
I'd recommend spending some time with working-class people before adopting any belief which treats them as fundamentally different than higher-income people in terms of preferences.
[0]:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2957908/
Sugary beverages have been correlated with obesity and weight gain in multiple other studies, however. One thing that’s interesting having read a few of these is that there are often contradictory results when doing meta-analysis of multiple studies.
Having empathy on a subject is definitely important. But it’s also important not to take an argument personally and not let personal anecdotes influence you more than they warrant. We’re not really talking about every poor person here and we’re not talking about your childhood friends. We’re mostly talking in generalizations about broad demographic trends.
Random study on obesity’s correlation with sugary drinks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862465/
Having empathy on a subject is definitely important. But it’s also important not to take an argument personally and not let personal anecdotes influence you more than they warrant. We’re not really talking about every poor person here and we’re not talking about your childhood friends. We’re mostly talking in generalizations about broad demographic trends.
Random study on obesity’s correlation with sugary drinks: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2862465/
The importance of the study I linked is that it examined consumption in low-income populations, and not the broader public.
As my point was that sugary drinks are often a form of caloric replacement, and not preference, for low-income people – as was my lived experience – the study was relevant as it's the type of result you'd expect were that to be the case.
I was not arguing that sugary drinks don't contribute to obesity in the general public.
As my point was that sugary drinks are often a form of caloric replacement, and not preference, for low-income people – as was my lived experience – the study was relevant as it's the type of result you'd expect were that to be the case.
I was not arguing that sugary drinks don't contribute to obesity in the general public.
I too grew up poor and we never had soft drinks. Instead my mom would make us kool-aid on occasion. We almost exclusively ate at home, from food my mom prepared. We did have a kitchen, so if you don’t have access to a kitchen your options are limited.
I've followed your comments in this thread. You'd benefit from educating yourself on the subject of food deserts it is not an unknown or new subject. There are hundreds of studies that explain how and why food deserts exist and why poor people make the decision that they do.
Feel free to share any resources you find particularly illuminating.
you may want to look here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4810442/#:~:tex....
From the stores perspective, I can imagine that there are a few reasons why it can make sense for them to move out of impoverished areas even while demand exists there.
Wealthy customers who can easily travel to stores in impoverished areas are turned off by poor conditions and higher crime rates and will shop elsewhere. They may also feel less comfortable shopping in areas where the majority of the other customers are of a different race or culture. The stores and staff may themselves experience increases in theft, vandalism, and violence in low income areas. Stores can't sell as many overpriced items in low income areas where the majority of their clientele are struggling to afford necessities.
It really doesn't matter that a store can make a healthy profit by serving customers who live in a low income area. If that same store feels that they could make even greater profits by being in an area with wealthier customers, then that is exactly what we must expect they will do.
From the stores perspective, I can imagine that there are a few reasons why it can make sense for them to move out of impoverished areas even while demand exists there.
Wealthy customers who can easily travel to stores in impoverished areas are turned off by poor conditions and higher crime rates and will shop elsewhere. They may also feel less comfortable shopping in areas where the majority of the other customers are of a different race or culture. The stores and staff may themselves experience increases in theft, vandalism, and violence in low income areas. Stores can't sell as many overpriced items in low income areas where the majority of their clientele are struggling to afford necessities.
It really doesn't matter that a store can make a healthy profit by serving customers who live in a low income area. If that same store feels that they could make even greater profits by being in an area with wealthier customers, then that is exactly what we must expect they will do.
One of the main indicators of in the study you linked was sales volume, i.e. demand.
> It really doesn't matter that a store can make a healthy profit by serving customers who live in a low income area. If that same store feels that they could make even greater profits by being in an area with wealthier customers
This only holds true if a chain can open a fixed amount of stores. In reality, they can open as many stores as they want provided that the stores operate profitably.
> It really doesn't matter that a store can make a healthy profit by serving customers who live in a low income area. If that same store feels that they could make even greater profits by being in an area with wealthier customers
This only holds true if a chain can open a fixed amount of stores. In reality, they can open as many stores as they want provided that the stores operate profitably.
I've looked at food deserts on maps. There are places that have no good grocery stores around, but there ARE good grocery stores 5 or 8 miles away. If you have a car, drive there. If you don't have a car, find someone - friend, church - who does and stock up when you go there.
My relatives lived in a food desert, but it was not in a city. They lived in the middle of nowhere. Rural. They were in an actual food desert, they had to drive 1 hour each way once a month to stock up at Costco. But they didn't bitch about how they were in a "food desert".
There are always solutions. They might take extra work...but so what?
Here in California, we have a store called The 99 Cent Only Store, which is a dollar store. A dollar store is where almost everything is a dollar. They HAVE had to raise their prices because of inflation, but so have all other grocery stores. A good dollar store is awesome to save money, if you buy the right stuff. It is awesome. I can buy blackberries there for $1, while at a regular supermarket they charge $3 or more. This is a 300% return on one's money to buy it at the dollar store. I can go into a dollar store and fill 3 grocery bags full of food that would only be half of one bag at a regular supermarket.
Mine has all kinds of other cool stuff, too. Buy a can opener for $1, rather than $5 or $8 at a supermarket - that is a 500% to 800% return on your money right there. Wouldn't you like to get 500-800% return on your money in the stock market? That's exactly what it is, exactly the same. Except if you sell your stocks, you have to pay taxes on them, but when you save money, you pay no taxes on saved money.
My relatives lived in a food desert, but it was not in a city. They lived in the middle of nowhere. Rural. They were in an actual food desert, they had to drive 1 hour each way once a month to stock up at Costco. But they didn't bitch about how they were in a "food desert".
There are always solutions. They might take extra work...but so what?
Here in California, we have a store called The 99 Cent Only Store, which is a dollar store. A dollar store is where almost everything is a dollar. They HAVE had to raise their prices because of inflation, but so have all other grocery stores. A good dollar store is awesome to save money, if you buy the right stuff. It is awesome. I can buy blackberries there for $1, while at a regular supermarket they charge $3 or more. This is a 300% return on one's money to buy it at the dollar store. I can go into a dollar store and fill 3 grocery bags full of food that would only be half of one bag at a regular supermarket.
Mine has all kinds of other cool stuff, too. Buy a can opener for $1, rather than $5 or $8 at a supermarket - that is a 500% to 800% return on your money right there. Wouldn't you like to get 500-800% return on your money in the stock market? That's exactly what it is, exactly the same. Except if you sell your stocks, you have to pay taxes on them, but when you save money, you pay no taxes on saved money.
The amount of ignorance in your post about the realities of poverty in the US is so hilarious it’s like a copypasta.
“Stupid poor people. Just find a friend with a car and go to Costco!”
“Stupid poor people. Just find a friend with a car and go to Costco!”
I understand poverty.
What is so difficult in finding a friend or organization with a car? Maybe it will take 2 or 3 or 4 weeks of trying to find someone to help, but eventually one can.
What is so difficult in finding a friend or organization with a car? Maybe it will take 2 or 3 or 4 weeks of trying to find someone to help, but eventually one can.
Sentence 1 and sentence 2 seem to be in a fight. You’ll need to pick one.
Sorry, I must have signed up for an extra helping of stupid. Tell me how you think that there is a fight between sentence 1 and sentence 2.
It isn't a return if the goods are low quality and last 1/8 as long. Same with low quality food that ruins health, the cost is externalized to health care
Low quality foodstuffs are available anywhere, even in the wealthiest communities - cheetos, twinkies, cookies, crackers, etc. One can make poor food choices anywhere, that is for sure. Anyone canget the cost externalized to healthcare.
The point is that it is a choice to buy fruits, vegetables, eggs, etc, rather than cookies.
Everyone knows what a poor diet is at this point. Who doesn't know potato chips are not healthy, even in the most poverty-stricken areas? Who doesn't know that brocolli is healthier than Sugar Puffs cerial. Nobody, that's who.
The point is that it is a choice to buy fruits, vegetables, eggs, etc, rather than cookies.
Everyone knows what a poor diet is at this point. Who doesn't know potato chips are not healthy, even in the most poverty-stricken areas? Who doesn't know that brocolli is healthier than Sugar Puffs cerial. Nobody, that's who.
A simple reason could be transportation cost/difficulties, especially for fresh foods like the ones you’ve described. Productive farmland isn’t ubiquitous. Outside of a spreadsheet, physical products certainly do not “materialize” from nothing.
> Where there exists demand for a good, supply materializes.
Only if it is sufficiently (read: highly) profitable.
Otherwise there can be all the demand in the world but it doesn't matter.
Only if it is sufficiently (read: highly) profitable.
Otherwise there can be all the demand in the world but it doesn't matter.
… unless you live in a food desert, in which case that capitalist society is failing to provide for basic needs.
This is a complex problem. Your reductive takes don’t really address the issue at hand and instead seek to wave it away.
“I already believe our system is great, so I’ll blame the poors before applying critical perspective to the system itself.”
This is a complex problem. Your reductive takes don’t really address the issue at hand and instead seek to wave it away.
“I already believe our system is great, so I’ll blame the poors before applying critical perspective to the system itself.”
Rice and potatoes are cheap, milk is cheap, a tub of country crock is cheap, basic salad supplies (lettuce, tomato, onions, etc.) are cheap, beans are cheap, white bread and some bologna is cheap, even meat can be cheap if mixed amidst other things to spread it out. None of these things are so exotic or in such short supply that you couldn't find them somewhere within a few bus stops even if you lacked the barest of local options. The poor might be unhealthy but it's not because they lack for cheap nutrition or the means to access it.
Funny I live in a capitalist society and we don't have many of these food deserts.
Its almost as if not every capitalist country has horrendously idiotic city planning.
Its almost as if not every capitalist country has horrendously idiotic city planning.
Most of the area of food deserts (as defined by the USDA) is rural. People live out in the country (often by choice) and then show up in statistics saying that there are lots of people that have low access to food.
https://www.aecf.org/blog/exploring-americas-food-deserts
Poor areas in cities will often not have an immediate, large, well stocked grocery store, but they are probably only a mile or two away from one, and there will certainly be smaller stores with some fresh items.
https://www.aecf.org/blog/exploring-americas-food-deserts
Poor areas in cities will often not have an immediate, large, well stocked grocery store, but they are probably only a mile or two away from one, and there will certainly be smaller stores with some fresh items.
> … unless you live in a food desert, in which case that capitalist society is failing to provide for basic needs.
Yes, you're starting to get it! If demand existed for cheap, nutritious food, someone would provide it for profit. We already know the food can be provided cheaply and profitably in other, more expensive, regions. So what conclusion can we come to other than that food deserts exist because the demand for the food doesn't exist?
Yes, you're starting to get it! If demand existed for cheap, nutritious food, someone would provide it for profit. We already know the food can be provided cheaply and profitably in other, more expensive, regions. So what conclusion can we come to other than that food deserts exist because the demand for the food doesn't exist?
I’m telling you that there IS demand, there IS need, but capitalism will not provide because market incentives are not enough to correct the situation.
Reality is not a thought experiment, and “supply and demand” is a simplistic reduction that conveys a general principle of economics but does not cover the entire nuanced reality of the food desert phenomenon. You are approaching this like someone who just took Econ 101 and thinks they have the whole thing figured out.
And since it’s clear that you really are doubling down on your idea that “it is poor people’s fault if they live in a food desert,” all I can do is encourage you to read this article and read more about the subject before assuming you are smarter than everyone else who actually works on this type of issue. Cheers.
Reality is not a thought experiment, and “supply and demand” is a simplistic reduction that conveys a general principle of economics but does not cover the entire nuanced reality of the food desert phenomenon. You are approaching this like someone who just took Econ 101 and thinks they have the whole thing figured out.
And since it’s clear that you really are doubling down on your idea that “it is poor people’s fault if they live in a food desert,” all I can do is encourage you to read this article and read more about the subject before assuming you are smarter than everyone else who actually works on this type of issue. Cheers.
So why do food deserts exist? The article simply states people live in food deserts. The article doesn't offer a reason for their existence.
Most likely, food deserts exist because we are transitioning away from an economy based on the idea of a nuclear family with a male breadwinner, female homemaker and 2.5 kids and all our benefits (medical, retirement), food culture etc. has all these baked in assumptions that mom is doing the grocery shopping and cooking for a family of four or more and that's no longer reality.
People don't have time to cook.
We haven't done enough to update our work arrangements to allow for someone to both work and eat well without mom having dinner waiting for dad when he gets home from work.
We haven't updated our food culture to allow for enough fresh, healthy options that don't take a lot of time.
Etc
People don't have time to cook.
We haven't done enough to update our work arrangements to allow for someone to both work and eat well without mom having dinner waiting for dad when he gets home from work.
We haven't updated our food culture to allow for enough fresh, healthy options that don't take a lot of time.
Etc
I feel like advertising does so much to move the needle the wrong way, as well as services like Uber Eats. No one is out there advertising how great heads of broccoli are...its not a sexy product. But colorful Fruit Loops with 3000g of sugar per bowl that are addicting as anything I've ever come across...now there is a catch. I've also seen a shift of eating apart for families as well, I would be curious to know how many families actually sit down at a table for a nightly meal nowadays.
Most people don't actually understand the problem space. You don't even seem to understand the problem space, given your closing line:
I would be curious to know how many families actually sit down at a table for a nightly meal nowadays
The entire point I am making is that we are moving away from a life that revolves around the nuclear family. Many households in the US today have one to three members.
If you live alone or as part of a childless couple or are a single parent, etc. then this cooking from scratch "the way my mother did" just doesn't actually logistically work. And I see the evidence of this over and over and over in online forums, from comments to questions about how to cope with various aspects of the issue.
People are not happy with the way they eat and they don't know how to fix it. And the solutions we come up with are often not really very good solutions.
I would be curious to know how many families actually sit down at a table for a nightly meal nowadays
The entire point I am making is that we are moving away from a life that revolves around the nuclear family. Many households in the US today have one to three members.
If you live alone or as part of a childless couple or are a single parent, etc. then this cooking from scratch "the way my mother did" just doesn't actually logistically work. And I see the evidence of this over and over and over in online forums, from comments to questions about how to cope with various aspects of the issue.
People are not happy with the way they eat and they don't know how to fix it. And the solutions we come up with are often not really very good solutions.
You might get more beneficial interaction from people if you weren't so accusatory and adversarial. I was on your side, just a thought.
> So why do food deserts exist?
Multiple reasons. I forgot the exact definition, grocery store within two miles or something.
Some neighborhoods the big chains leave because they lose a lot of money from theft. A whole lot of money. I heard all kinds of schemes from talking to people when I drove a cab, people would walk out of stores with full grocery carts. So they just write off that part of town and the locals get Dollar General and gas station convenience stores to shop at.
Then, grocery chains don’t like competing one store against another and there’s only three (I believe) major chains these days so won’t build them too close together. Depending on how they’re spread out you might end up with no stores reasonably close. So back to Dollar General.
One thing I noticed about Phoenix is the poor and rich areas both didn’t have much shopping. Rich areas, didn’t matter, they just drove to the store and were happy about it, try to find a gas station in Paradise Valley or North Scottsdale. Poor areas, matters a lot because they have to pay a premium to shop local or pay for a ride to a proper grocery store. Even if it’s only $20 round trip that adds up when money is tight. I used to get these calls where the insurance company would pay for a cab ride to pickup prescriptions and there’d be four adults with three full shopping carts thinking they were getting a free shopping trip. If they had a reasonable amount of groceries (they were there anyway…) I’d take them with maybe a little whining but if it’s a couple families doing their monthly shopping thinking I’m going to waste close to an hour for $6 then, no, I’d just leave them. Eh, got kind of off track there.
Multiple reasons. I forgot the exact definition, grocery store within two miles or something.
Some neighborhoods the big chains leave because they lose a lot of money from theft. A whole lot of money. I heard all kinds of schemes from talking to people when I drove a cab, people would walk out of stores with full grocery carts. So they just write off that part of town and the locals get Dollar General and gas station convenience stores to shop at.
Then, grocery chains don’t like competing one store against another and there’s only three (I believe) major chains these days so won’t build them too close together. Depending on how they’re spread out you might end up with no stores reasonably close. So back to Dollar General.
One thing I noticed about Phoenix is the poor and rich areas both didn’t have much shopping. Rich areas, didn’t matter, they just drove to the store and were happy about it, try to find a gas station in Paradise Valley or North Scottsdale. Poor areas, matters a lot because they have to pay a premium to shop local or pay for a ride to a proper grocery store. Even if it’s only $20 round trip that adds up when money is tight. I used to get these calls where the insurance company would pay for a cab ride to pickup prescriptions and there’d be four adults with three full shopping carts thinking they were getting a free shopping trip. If they had a reasonable amount of groceries (they were there anyway…) I’d take them with maybe a little whining but if it’s a couple families doing their monthly shopping thinking I’m going to waste close to an hour for $6 then, no, I’d just leave them. Eh, got kind of off track there.
They exist because of capitalism. You've talked a lot about how capitalism works but seem unfamiliar with the negative effects capitalism can have
Let me illustrate how this happens. Walmart enters into a small town. They bankrupt the local groceries by undercutting and using economy of scale. They become the sole grocer in town. Healthier alternatives cannot exist because Walmart quickly crushes them.
Next, Walmart leaves because they've squeezed as much value as possible out of the town and are no longer seeing growth. The jobs and grocery that the town relied on vanish, and no other grocers can enter into that space because of the bootstrap costs.
This location is now a food desert. Nearest grocery access is a few towns over, or you get lucky and one of the dollar store chains enters in to help.
This isn't just an illustrative example. This is something that happens [1]. Constantly. [2].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/what-happene...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-closures-leaving-sma...
Let me illustrate how this happens. Walmart enters into a small town. They bankrupt the local groceries by undercutting and using economy of scale. They become the sole grocer in town. Healthier alternatives cannot exist because Walmart quickly crushes them.
Next, Walmart leaves because they've squeezed as much value as possible out of the town and are no longer seeing growth. The jobs and grocery that the town relied on vanish, and no other grocers can enter into that space because of the bootstrap costs.
This location is now a food desert. Nearest grocery access is a few towns over, or you get lucky and one of the dollar store chains enters in to help.
This isn't just an illustrative example. This is something that happens [1]. Constantly. [2].
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/09/what-happene...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Business/walmart-closures-leaving-sma...
[deleted]
[deleted](1)
Capitalism is a mere social structure, we live on an earth with limited agricultural output. Soil depletion has already made food less nutritious and the problem isn’t getting better.
Pretty much all the food you mention are extremely expensive when your basic caloric needs arent met. $1 for broccoli that will give me basically zero energy is a really awful deal. If you have enough calories, then yeah, buy the broccoli.
Beans are great, but require time to cook that not everyone has, especially when very poor. They also cost money to cook, require a kitchen, time to clean dishes, a place to store em if cooked in bulk, etc.
Bananas though, are wonderful, sent from heaven.
To some of your other posts, it’s not really sufficient that this food merely exists. otherwise, yeah, problemo solved, trivial.
The bridge that has to be gapped is: - foods gotta be accessible - people gotta have enough time to cook the food, this is a biggy - people gotta have time to clean up from the food - people gotta have enough of the healthy food and with enough macronutrient diversity to not get sick. $1 worth of bananas ain’t gonna hold you like that $1 cheeseburger.
Somewhere in all of this is that eating healthy is way more cognitive overload when you’re poor than when you’re stable. Now that I’m stable I have enough time on a Sunday to cook a weeks worth of meals. I don’t really have to scrunch to do it, I’m not cutting into sleep time to do it. Lotta folks don’t have that luxury.
Beans are great, but require time to cook that not everyone has, especially when very poor. They also cost money to cook, require a kitchen, time to clean dishes, a place to store em if cooked in bulk, etc.
Bananas though, are wonderful, sent from heaven.
To some of your other posts, it’s not really sufficient that this food merely exists. otherwise, yeah, problemo solved, trivial.
The bridge that has to be gapped is: - foods gotta be accessible - people gotta have enough time to cook the food, this is a biggy - people gotta have time to clean up from the food - people gotta have enough of the healthy food and with enough macronutrient diversity to not get sick. $1 worth of bananas ain’t gonna hold you like that $1 cheeseburger.
Somewhere in all of this is that eating healthy is way more cognitive overload when you’re poor than when you’re stable. Now that I’m stable I have enough time on a Sunday to cook a weeks worth of meals. I don’t really have to scrunch to do it, I’m not cutting into sleep time to do it. Lotta folks don’t have that luxury.
> Beans are great, but require time to cook that not everyone has, especially when very poor.
When I was very poor a friend of mine gave me a crockpot that got dented in shipping and Amazon sent a replacement. Throw some pinto beans in it in the morning and fire up the rice cooker (bought with an Amazon gift card from my sister for Christmas) when I got home and have the perfect cheap meal[0].
Once I figured out I could make cornbread in the rice cooker it was all over, $1.49 Jiffy cornbread box (think it needed an egg and maybe milk too so not all the time) with some beans thrown on top and I was in heaven.
Or sometimes I’d just make a giant pancake in the rice cooker which was also pretty awesome.
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWhHJXgxgc
When I was very poor a friend of mine gave me a crockpot that got dented in shipping and Amazon sent a replacement. Throw some pinto beans in it in the morning and fire up the rice cooker (bought with an Amazon gift card from my sister for Christmas) when I got home and have the perfect cheap meal[0].
Once I figured out I could make cornbread in the rice cooker it was all over, $1.49 Jiffy cornbread box (think it needed an egg and maybe milk too so not all the time) with some beans thrown on top and I was in heaven.
Or sometimes I’d just make a giant pancake in the rice cooker which was also pretty awesome.
[0] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XcWhHJXgxgc
It might be a case of the US and Australia being different, but here here $1 will get you 3 or 4 bananas at an independent fruit shop whereas even the shittiest cheeseburger on the Hungry Jack's Penny Pinchers menu costs $2.
The tricky part of this is macro nutrient diversity and satiety.
Let’s say $2 for 8 bananas vs $2 cheeseburger
Assuming normal size bananas, that’s about 800 cal worth of banana. From what I can tell about that cheeseburger, 415 cal per serving. So banana almost twice as good?
Not quite. Those 8 bananas are pure carbohydrate. You’re gonna digest those very quickly, and you’d still need a source for protein + fat, both of which you need to not die.
The shittiest cheeseburger, on the other hand, has tons of fat and a decent hit of protein. Way slower to digest. Also way easier to do stuff after eating. Eating that many bananas is a rough deal
10/10 times in severe poverty, I’d save up for for the cheeseburger.
I say though, the banana is still a very good additional carb source on a tight budget when combined with other foods. I ate, and will continue to eat, a boatload of bananas.
Let’s say $2 for 8 bananas vs $2 cheeseburger
Assuming normal size bananas, that’s about 800 cal worth of banana. From what I can tell about that cheeseburger, 415 cal per serving. So banana almost twice as good?
Not quite. Those 8 bananas are pure carbohydrate. You’re gonna digest those very quickly, and you’d still need a source for protein + fat, both of which you need to not die.
The shittiest cheeseburger, on the other hand, has tons of fat and a decent hit of protein. Way slower to digest. Also way easier to do stuff after eating. Eating that many bananas is a rough deal
10/10 times in severe poverty, I’d save up for for the cheeseburger.
I say though, the banana is still a very good additional carb source on a tight budget when combined with other foods. I ate, and will continue to eat, a boatload of bananas.
I think if you buy frozen beef parties, buns and cheese separately and cook yourself you can do better than $2 per cheeseburger.
Food is something already solved in US. I think more expenses come from other sources: housing, medicine, transportation.
Food is something already solved in US. I think more expenses come from other sources: housing, medicine, transportation.
>10/10 times in severe poverty, I’d save up for for the cheeseburger.
If you're saving your money, why not go for the classic student combo of home brand bread, peanut butter and milk?
Just under 10,000 cal of diverse macronutrients for A$7.50 at Aldi, no cooking or significant prep required (cheeseburger equivalent would be closer to $50).
Get yourself those 8 bananas for $2 extra (realistically it'd probably be 5 big ones, though) and you'll get enough fibre to actually feel good too.
If you're saving your money, why not go for the classic student combo of home brand bread, peanut butter and milk?
Just under 10,000 cal of diverse macronutrients for A$7.50 at Aldi, no cooking or significant prep required (cheeseburger equivalent would be closer to $50).
Get yourself those 8 bananas for $2 extra (realistically it'd probably be 5 big ones, though) and you'll get enough fibre to actually feel good too.
> 10/10 times in severe poverty, I’d save up for for the cheeseburger
I lived on 500€/month for several years with only a microwave oven, and if your BMI is between 20 and 25, you can just eat canned vegetables at 0.50€ half of the time and be healthy.
I can't eat green beans anymore though.
I lived on 500€/month for several years with only a microwave oven, and if your BMI is between 20 and 25, you can just eat canned vegetables at 0.50€ half of the time and be healthy.
I can't eat green beans anymore though.
Personally, it was corn I got burnt out on, but canned foods were a lifesaver. Usually precooked too, can skip the microwave.
Other than the refined carbs in the bun, a cheeseburger is actually a very healthy meal.
>Broccoli costs less than a $1 per head
A head of broccoli is going for ~$5 at Loblaws in Canada. It's not much cheaper at shops in NYC.
https://www.loblaws.ca/broccoli/p/20145621001_EA
I bring up this example because if you try hard enough, $5 will buy you an entire (unhealthy) meal. It's really hard to tell someone to spend their entire meal budget on a single head of broccoli!
> Organic rainbow carrots are $1.50 a pound
https://www.loblaws.ca/organic-carrots-bunched/p/20056027001...
Sold by the bunch, but really more like ~$10/lb.
I don't disagree that it's possible to eat healthily on a thin budget, but we're sadly past the point where this can be accomplished by buying fresh vegetables at the supermarket.
A head of broccoli is going for ~$5 at Loblaws in Canada. It's not much cheaper at shops in NYC.
https://www.loblaws.ca/broccoli/p/20145621001_EA
I bring up this example because if you try hard enough, $5 will buy you an entire (unhealthy) meal. It's really hard to tell someone to spend their entire meal budget on a single head of broccoli!
> Organic rainbow carrots are $1.50 a pound
https://www.loblaws.ca/organic-carrots-bunched/p/20056027001...
Sold by the bunch, but really more like ~$10/lb.
I don't disagree that it's possible to eat healthily on a thin budget, but we're sadly past the point where this can be accomplished by buying fresh vegetables at the supermarket.
Dry beans and fresh food like you described cost a large amount of time to prepare compared to processed food, and time is a luxury poor people do not have.
If you take a bus to work, you probably don’t have time cook.
If you take a bus to work, you probably don’t have time cook.
> Time is a luxury poor people do not have
I know a lot of poor people and I assure you that many of them have plenty of time. There are certainly many hard-working poor who desperately need time back in their day and would cook if they had the time, but time alone would certainly not solve the phenomena of poor people not cooking. What many other poor people do not have is executive functioning skills, the ability to plan ahead, or impulse control, and some of them also have addictions or expensive recreational drug habits, or live in unsafe scenarios where cooking would be an absurd afterthought.
Furthermore, many of the poorest people are recent immigrants (Mexican, Indian, Middle Eastern, African) and those households often rely on home cooking even more than many affluent households do.
I know a lot of poor people and I assure you that many of them have plenty of time. There are certainly many hard-working poor who desperately need time back in their day and would cook if they had the time, but time alone would certainly not solve the phenomena of poor people not cooking. What many other poor people do not have is executive functioning skills, the ability to plan ahead, or impulse control, and some of them also have addictions or expensive recreational drug habits, or live in unsafe scenarios where cooking would be an absurd afterthought.
Furthermore, many of the poorest people are recent immigrants (Mexican, Indian, Middle Eastern, African) and those households often rely on home cooking even more than many affluent households do.
I'll need to find a better source because I remember an actual study, but is it that they don't have executive functioning skills or is it that being poor affects their executive functioning skills via the constant stress: https://borgenproject.org/psychological-effects-poverty/
That's an interesting question; if stress alone impacts executive functioning skills you'd expect to see similar reductions in high-stress jobs like surgery, finance, war, extreme sports, etc. Of course one doesn't necessarily consent to the stress of poverty as one might the stress of a career; I suspect that the threat of violence and the fear of being evicted or moved would cause a different stress distribution on the brain then that of performing surgery or flying a fighting helicopter.
Ultimately, I think it's likely that stress impacts everyone's executive functioning, not just poor people, but poor people may have a higher stress burden and also probably had lower raw "executive functioning" ability to begin with. In Western countries, where the economies are primarily based on rewarding jobs that prioritize extreme logical abstractions, there is a clear casual relationship between measured intelligence* and lifetime earning potential. I believe that this (unsavory) point is too often left out when proposing solutions to poverty because it implies the existence of an inherent, unfixable difference in human ability. To me this difference is obvious and should simply be planned for, but to many others it's a myth.
I do feel passionately about this subject because one of my family members is developmentally disabled enough that she cannot live a normal life but not enough that she's obviously impaired, and the rate at which her decisions lead her to live the life of a pretty run-of-the-mill American poor person is astonishing. If we didn't pay for everything she needed she would fit in perfectly with the behavior and lifestyles of the people in the slum areas of my city, and in fact she's already done some stints there due to some friends she made when she was unwilling to live at the family home.
(* = I am not saying "poor people are poor because they're dumb" or "if you're smarter you'll make more money" or that "IQ is real", only that "when you select a random adult, the less well they're able to perform on western-style intelligence tests the less likely it is they'll have a lot of money".)
Ultimately, I think it's likely that stress impacts everyone's executive functioning, not just poor people, but poor people may have a higher stress burden and also probably had lower raw "executive functioning" ability to begin with. In Western countries, where the economies are primarily based on rewarding jobs that prioritize extreme logical abstractions, there is a clear casual relationship between measured intelligence* and lifetime earning potential. I believe that this (unsavory) point is too often left out when proposing solutions to poverty because it implies the existence of an inherent, unfixable difference in human ability. To me this difference is obvious and should simply be planned for, but to many others it's a myth.
I do feel passionately about this subject because one of my family members is developmentally disabled enough that she cannot live a normal life but not enough that she's obviously impaired, and the rate at which her decisions lead her to live the life of a pretty run-of-the-mill American poor person is astonishing. If we didn't pay for everything she needed she would fit in perfectly with the behavior and lifestyles of the people in the slum areas of my city, and in fact she's already done some stints there due to some friends she made when she was unwilling to live at the family home.
(* = I am not saying "poor people are poor because they're dumb" or "if you're smarter you'll make more money" or that "IQ is real", only that "when you select a random adult, the less well they're able to perform on western-style intelligence tests the less likely it is they'll have a lot of money".)
>if stress alone impacts executive functioning skills you'd expect to see similar reductions in high-stress jobs like surgery, finance, war, extreme sports, etc.
It's not that complicated. Long term thinking requires certainty. Poor people generally dont have enough economic certainty to plan for longer periods into the future and that's the cause of their constant stress.
This stress and uncertainty poor people experience can constantly create survival scenarios where a longer chain of consecutive decisions have to be correct than for an equally intelligent rich person.
It's not that complicated. Long term thinking requires certainty. Poor people generally dont have enough economic certainty to plan for longer periods into the future and that's the cause of their constant stress.
This stress and uncertainty poor people experience can constantly create survival scenarios where a longer chain of consecutive decisions have to be correct than for an equally intelligent rich person.
What do you consider a large time? There are plenty of healthy meals one could cook in around 30 minutes. Personally I meal prep on Sundays and make it a personal challenge to have everything complete including prep, cooking, washing etc in less than a hour. It's pretty rare I fail.
"Take the bus"? That seems like a massive exaggeration.
It's not hard to do simple, health, quick meal prep. Hell, buy some veggies, wash them and eat them is health as hell. Make rice or beans in 20 min.
If you have enough time to walk or drive to get fast food, you have enough time to make a healthy meal.
It's not hard to do simple, health, quick meal prep. Hell, buy some veggies, wash them and eat them is health as hell. Make rice or beans in 20 min.
If you have enough time to walk or drive to get fast food, you have enough time to make a healthy meal.
Most people cannot conceive that they don't have to eat the things they eat from a restaurant --- or that they are free to do something non-traditional, in general. In their mind, cooking means cooking the things they order at a restaurant. They don't think they are able to do so or they don't think they have enough time, so it's not an option for them. I hear people talk about healthy eating as expensive, because supposedly-healthy meals are sold at a premium to health-conscious customers at restaurants.
It's also a matter of skills. Cooking doesn't have to be that time consuming if you know how to do it efficiently. And you don't have to cook everyday. Some people cook more in the weekend and then save it for later. Unfortunately, this is something that isn't taught at school.
It doesn't need to. Buy dried beans, prepare them all at once, freeze. Then you can make quick meals in like 10 minutes.
As I wrote in my other post, its about city planning.
> And yes, food deserts exist.
Yes because car dependency and long distances involved. If you have a mixed use walkable area there is almost always access to freshish foods at least basic vegis.
Being depended on big box stores in some commercial district with a gigantic parking lot that you can't walk to that you only go to once every week or two is the problem.
> And yes, food deserts exist.
Yes because car dependency and long distances involved. If you have a mixed use walkable area there is almost always access to freshish foods at least basic vegis.
Being depended on big box stores in some commercial district with a gigantic parking lot that you can't walk to that you only go to once every week or two is the problem.
might also be hard to find the time to cook when you got two kids and three jobs.
Yeah poor people know about Bananas for the most part.
You’re gonna need to eat well over ten pounds of broccoli and carrots to get a full days calories. This is going to be something most are going to see more as supplemental, or as means to dip.
Beans and rice are well and good but they’re not actually very nutrient dense. I know people who QUIT rice due to concerns that a bowl of rice raises blood sugar. In fact a lot of the foods you suggested are fairly high in sugar. I’ve known others who quit beans because they’re notoriously harsh on digestion.
When poor it’s hard to get sufficient nutrients or avoid excessive carbs and sugars, and you don’t have the luxury of playing around with things like speciality diets because you just can’t afford to.
You’re gonna need to eat well over ten pounds of broccoli and carrots to get a full days calories. This is going to be something most are going to see more as supplemental, or as means to dip.
Beans and rice are well and good but they’re not actually very nutrient dense. I know people who QUIT rice due to concerns that a bowl of rice raises blood sugar. In fact a lot of the foods you suggested are fairly high in sugar. I’ve known others who quit beans because they’re notoriously harsh on digestion.
When poor it’s hard to get sufficient nutrients or avoid excessive carbs and sugars, and you don’t have the luxury of playing around with things like speciality diets because you just can’t afford to.
Who said you have to eat only broccoli and only bananas? The person mentioned those because you need a varied diet. If you eat potatoes, lentils/beans, broccoli, banana, and some more things, that's a nutritious, cheap and health meal.
Nobody is suggesting that you get your calories from broccoli and carrots or bananas. That's what grains and fats are for.
Food is really cheap. In my experience, American born people assume that immigrants and poor people are buying packaged foods. In my experience as a child of immigrants, my parents bought actual bulk food items and produce at stores. It's exceptionally cheap unless you're shopping at a DINK store like whole foods.
Dollar stores are amazing for kids things. For example, balloons are a dollar at the dollar store and ten dollars for the same balloon at Safeway.
Dollar stores are amazing for kids things. For example, balloons are a dollar at the dollar store and ten dollars for the same balloon at Safeway.
I cannot imagine buying food at the dollar store even if you are poor.
Eggs, beans, rice, bread, potatoes, apples, bananas, are among the cheapest foods at any grocery store or supermarket.
Eggs, beans, rice, bread, potatoes, apples, bananas, are among the cheapest foods at any grocery store or supermarket.
I kind of hate that your being downvoted b/c your perspective here is a very common one.
It’s not just a matter of unit price, but also time, convenience, and cal/$. Fruit / veg in general is pretty expensive when looked at from a cal/$ perspective — you pay for a lot of water there. Potatoes, beans, rice are pretty slow cooking, and require dealing with dishes after.
So for my single mom, it was pretty hard to provide anything but
1) fast food (decent cal/$, extremely convenient)
2) microwaveable tv dinners (Meh cal per dollar, but long shelf life, extremely convenient)
3) PB / lunch meat sandwiches (basically god tier for poor chow)
For reference, my mom worked many jobs and got maybe 4-5 hrs sleep a night. Adding 30 minutes for a days worth of meals was a lot.
It’s not just a matter of unit price, but also time, convenience, and cal/$. Fruit / veg in general is pretty expensive when looked at from a cal/$ perspective — you pay for a lot of water there. Potatoes, beans, rice are pretty slow cooking, and require dealing with dishes after.
So for my single mom, it was pretty hard to provide anything but
1) fast food (decent cal/$, extremely convenient)
2) microwaveable tv dinners (Meh cal per dollar, but long shelf life, extremely convenient)
3) PB / lunch meat sandwiches (basically god tier for poor chow)
For reference, my mom worked many jobs and got maybe 4-5 hrs sleep a night. Adding 30 minutes for a days worth of meals was a lot.
I know fast-food and microwaveable tv dinners are cheap and "worry free" but you pay the price with your health. Consider it like achool abuse. You get away with it several times but eventually your health will deteriorate.
You have to want to eat healthy and set the appropriate mindset. For example instead to order that fastfood crap just eat some simple raw, "spartan" food(bananas, boiled meat or even fried meat etc). I have some good experience with that working long hours on my own startup(s) without distractions.
I doubt you don't have 30 minutes to "prepare" your dinner. After all you don't really prepare much. Just boil or fry whatever raw food you have.
Of course convincing kids to eat not very tasty food may be a different story but it's doable because I've seen that too.
At some point you may start to appreciate the simple food and hate when the chefs put you sugar and all kinds of "flavours" in your food.
You have to want to eat healthy and set the appropriate mindset. For example instead to order that fastfood crap just eat some simple raw, "spartan" food(bananas, boiled meat or even fried meat etc). I have some good experience with that working long hours on my own startup(s) without distractions.
I doubt you don't have 30 minutes to "prepare" your dinner. After all you don't really prepare much. Just boil or fry whatever raw food you have.
Of course convincing kids to eat not very tasty food may be a different story but it's doable because I've seen that too.
At some point you may start to appreciate the simple food and hate when the chefs put you sugar and all kinds of "flavours" in your food.
I can say with 100% certainty there was not 30 minutes to cook dinner alone.
At a certain point you’re balancing how much sleep you need to perform at work (4-5 hours) and the amount of time you’d spend commuting and working (~16 hours a day). When you throw in errands, cleaning, maintenance, and maybe 30 minutes in passing period leisure, there really isn’t time to cook.
At a certain point you’re balancing how much sleep you need to perform at work (4-5 hours) and the amount of time you’d spend commuting and working (~16 hours a day). When you throw in errands, cleaning, maintenance, and maybe 30 minutes in passing period leisure, there really isn’t time to cook.
And yes, to your point, you will eventually rack up a ton up health problems with this lifestyle… to the articles point, being poor is expensive. It you have the option to not be poor, definitely take it!!
Depends really how you trade speed for complexity. To be honest at the end of the meal I had no more than 2-3 items to wash. Of course this means your dinner will look and taste "poor" but it's way "better" than the microwave pizza/dinner.
If you have kids perhaps the solution is for each one to wash its own plate(s). My point is that you can be poor and eat healthy but you have to want that.
If you have kids perhaps the solution is for each one to wash its own plate(s). My point is that you can be poor and eat healthy but you have to want that.
We _definitely_ wanted it. Badly. It was not a case of “not wanting it.” It was a case of:
- a lack of time
— a lack of resources (just two folks, no expendable income)
- a lack of cognitive energy, probably stress induced from managing the above two.
I think this is a particularly rich western country thing though, the method of being poor you describe works great when you have an extended family who can pool resources. But for a single mom and young child, you can’t smart your way out of it. It’s like trying to optimize a triple a game to run on twenty year old hardware —- just ain’t the cycles, have to reduce the workload.
- a lack of time
— a lack of resources (just two folks, no expendable income)
- a lack of cognitive energy, probably stress induced from managing the above two.
I think this is a particularly rich western country thing though, the method of being poor you describe works great when you have an extended family who can pool resources. But for a single mom and young child, you can’t smart your way out of it. It’s like trying to optimize a triple a game to run on twenty year old hardware —- just ain’t the cycles, have to reduce the workload.
>> - a lack of cognitive energy, probably stress induced from managing the above two.
I think this is really the most important point. We know we should do better but we lack the cognitive energy. I can totally understand it.
Getting yourself on the right track is hard but at least you can develop a mental story you can control and stay "in the zone". I can't imagine how hard it is being poor and single with children, always being distracted by thousands of small issues.
I think this is really the most important point. We know we should do better but we lack the cognitive energy. I can totally understand it.
Getting yourself on the right track is hard but at least you can develop a mental story you can control and stay "in the zone". I can't imagine how hard it is being poor and single with children, always being distracted by thousands of small issues.
The cognitive energy is the least important point by a country mile. Again, you can’t optimize your way out of severe poverty. It is not a problem of mental fortitude, self induced or not. I feel like statements like the one I’m replying to miss the point entirely.
It’s a problem with not having enough time or money to eat well. That’s the take away. The cognitive stress is just a bonus.
Put another way, we totally could have eaten better if we had more time or money. It’s highly unlikely we could have eaten better if we had more mental fortitude.
To reinforce that point, my mom was a very fit person who prioritized eating well before becoming poor. Ran, mountain biked, ski-ed.
After I got money, pretty much all my disposable goes into health and food to fuel. Lift, cycle, surf, run. In high school, I wrestled explicitly because coach would buy me food. It wasn’t mental fortitude or will that was lacking.
It was just time and money.
It’s a problem with not having enough time or money to eat well. That’s the take away. The cognitive stress is just a bonus.
Put another way, we totally could have eaten better if we had more time or money. It’s highly unlikely we could have eaten better if we had more mental fortitude.
To reinforce that point, my mom was a very fit person who prioritized eating well before becoming poor. Ran, mountain biked, ski-ed.
After I got money, pretty much all my disposable goes into health and food to fuel. Lift, cycle, surf, run. In high school, I wrestled explicitly because coach would buy me food. It wasn’t mental fortitude or will that was lacking.
It was just time and money.
This is a really arrogant attitude that reeks of the 'pull yourself up by your bootstrap' bullshit.
IDK if it’s arrogance — it can be interpreted that way, but I think a more generous interpretation is that it’s really hard for people who haven’t been poor and chronically food insecure to understand what it’s like and the situations that lead to it. Which makes it hard for the conversations to be productive.
Do Americans in that situation serve much pasta? Pasta is generally cheap, stores well and cooks quickly. You can serve it with pesto out of a jar, butter/oil/pepper, or various other tomato-based jar sauces if short of time.
I have children so can empathise with anyone short of time and trying to accommodate juvenile palates, but pasta with some sauce options is one of our fallbacks - the two youngest like pesto. Rice is another (trivial in a rice cooker).
I have children so can empathise with anyone short of time and trying to accommodate juvenile palates, but pasta with some sauce options is one of our fallbacks - the two youngest like pesto. Rice is another (trivial in a rice cooker).
Yes. Tons of pasta and chili too. Hamburger is (or at least used to be) pretty much the cheapest beef you can get.
Yep, ditto. You can sometimes score good deals on meat that’s turned brown from oxidization because it’s unsellable to most folks. Tastes fine, same nutritional value
> Fruit / veg in general is pretty expensive when looked at from a cal/$ perspective — you pay for a lot of water there.
I agree with your post overall but would quibble with this point. Maximizing calories isn't a very good goal. Eating fewer calories but more fruits and vegetables would be an improvement for most people in the US, regardless of socioeconomic status.
I agree with your post overall but would quibble with this point. Maximizing calories isn't a very good goal. Eating fewer calories but more fruits and vegetables would be an improvement for most people in the US, regardless of socioeconomic status.
You’re right, I’ll be a bit more specific.
When you’re really poor, if you buy food naively or based on what is recommended nutritionally for financially secure people, it’s very easy to end up in a situation where you spent all your cash but are still hungry. If you keep doing this, you’ll lose too much weight, get sick, and won’t be able to work. So you have to keep in mind the amount of satiety you’re getting for your cash when you buy food. Fruit and veg have tend to have very low satieties for the $, despite being nutritionally very valuable when you do have sufficient calories.
When you’re really poor, if you buy food naively or based on what is recommended nutritionally for financially secure people, it’s very easy to end up in a situation where you spent all your cash but are still hungry. If you keep doing this, you’ll lose too much weight, get sick, and won’t be able to work. So you have to keep in mind the amount of satiety you’re getting for your cash when you buy food. Fruit and veg have tend to have very low satieties for the $, despite being nutritionally very valuable when you do have sufficient calories.
I was also raised by a single Mom and can attest to a similar experience. Although I don’t remember a great deal of fast food. It was a kind of luxury thing we had a few times a month. I remember my Mom trying to avoid it. We were also on assistance and ate out of food pantries a lot. We had lots and lots of canned food e.g. soup and various kinds of vegetables, and they gave us ridiculous amounts of cheese. You basically take what you can get. My Mom used to trade excess cheese blocks with my grandmother for laundry detergent.
I’d have to ask her about time and sleep but I remember it being more hectic than it was strained. This may not have been as true without the assistance we were able to take advantage of. I remember being woken up very early (around 4-5 AM) to be taken to a baby sitter. I must’ve been 4 or 5 at the time. I would sleep in the car along the way.
I’d have to ask her about time and sleep but I remember it being more hectic than it was strained. This may not have been as true without the assistance we were able to take advantage of. I remember being woken up very early (around 4-5 AM) to be taken to a baby sitter. I must’ve been 4 or 5 at the time. I would sleep in the car along the way.
As another child of an overworked single mom, allow me to cheer for your comment.
The amount of paternalistic "just make better choices!" nonsense in this thread is giving me a headache.
The amount of paternalistic "just make better choices!" nonsense in this thread is giving me a headache.
My experience was the opposite. We were dirt poor and had home cooked meals all the time, it was way cheaper than fast food or microwaveable meals.
Buy 10 kg of rice, a bag of beans and some frozen veggies for under $20, cook it all at once in a big pot. You've got 10 meals for under $20 and maybe an hours time.
Put it in the fridge/freezer and you've got healthy meals for a week that cost $0.50 each.
Not sure how a single $10 meal at fast food could be considered "a cheaper alternative".
Buy 10 kg of rice, a bag of beans and some frozen veggies for under $20, cook it all at once in a big pot. You've got 10 meals for under $20 and maybe an hours time.
Put it in the fridge/freezer and you've got healthy meals for a week that cost $0.50 each.
Not sure how a single $10 meal at fast food could be considered "a cheaper alternative".
True, maybe the fast food was a luxury we had cause my mom worked at McDonald’s for a minute. Fast food is sometime cheaper / free-er when you have someone on the inside.
And yeah, if you have the time, highly recommend the bean and rice / boiled dry staples route. Way better. But if you don’t have the time, can be hard to pull off.
And yeah, if you have the time, highly recommend the bean and rice / boiled dry staples route. Way better. But if you don’t have the time, can be hard to pull off.
You clearly haven't bought eggs, beans, rice, etc. at the grocery store and been on a budget. In the last two years the price of eggs have easily doubled--a dozen large store brand eggs are over 3 bucks now vs maybe 99 cents pre-pandemic. Every single staple you mention has gone up in price significantly. Food inflation is astronomical and if you don't feel it then it's quite a privilege. If you were struggling to make ends meet two years ago, you are in deep deep trouble or probably completely forgotten by society and/or dead now.
In the last two years the price of eggs have easily doubled--a dozen large store brand eggs are over 3 bucks now vs maybe 99 cents pre-pandemic.
Food in the US is insanely cheap. Wow.
$4.78 USD at the cheapest store here, and this is on special.
Food in the US is insanely cheap. Wow.
$4.78 USD at the cheapest store here, and this is on special.
> $4.78 USD at the cheapest store here, and this is on special.
I was about to say that this is roughly what supermarket eggs cost here in Switzerland but then realised that your price was for a dozen and I was thinking a box of six.
Eggs here are often sold in units of one (you fill your own box with however many eggs you need) and cost about US$0.80 per egg.
I was about to say that this is roughly what supermarket eggs cost here in Switzerland but then realised that your price was for a dozen and I was thinking a box of six.
Eggs here are often sold in units of one (you fill your own box with however many eggs you need) and cost about US$0.80 per egg.
$0.25 per egg is still a great value in terms of health and satiety.
No, it's not. Dried beans, rice and potatoes are a better value. Eggs are damn luxury now at 25 cents a pop.
You need a balance diet: beans, rice and potatoes are good for carbs/energy, but lacking in lipid, protein and vitamin. For a cheap meal, the majority of it should be carbs, but adding 1-2 egg improve it a lot.
[deleted]
Many Asian cuisines (that have fed ppl who have been very poor) feature a dish that is a beaten raw egg mixed through rice (the hot rice then cooks the egg a little). Rice & beans etc are good staples but the experience of extremely poor people that is reflected in these cuisines is that it's good and worthwhile to add some extra good quality ingredients to these staples.
> You clearly haven't bought eggs, beans, rice, etc. at the grocery store and been on a budget.
Food inflation is real but not experienced the same way by many Americans who consume mostly processed foods, which are less vulnerable to commodities shocks. So I can't be too surprised the HN crowd hasn't noticed. But eggs are apparently specially fucked[1] due to an avian flu outbreak, so you're kinda cherry picking. Cherries btw, have seemingly doubled in price, but pre-pandemic was the cheapest they'd ever been in the past 30 years.[2]
More importantly, I think you're missing the point the article and OP were making: dollar store supply chains for these goods suck compared to grocery stores that are optimized for this. Whatever inflation has done to raw goods is amplified at these small dollar stores.
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/11/why-egg-prices-are-surging-b... [2]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU01110203
Food inflation is real but not experienced the same way by many Americans who consume mostly processed foods, which are less vulnerable to commodities shocks. So I can't be too surprised the HN crowd hasn't noticed. But eggs are apparently specially fucked[1] due to an avian flu outbreak, so you're kinda cherry picking. Cherries btw, have seemingly doubled in price, but pre-pandemic was the cheapest they'd ever been in the past 30 years.[2]
More importantly, I think you're missing the point the article and OP were making: dollar store supply chains for these goods suck compared to grocery stores that are optimized for this. Whatever inflation has done to raw goods is amplified at these small dollar stores.
[1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/11/why-egg-prices-are-surging-b... [2]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WPU01110203
There are unfortunately a bunch of factors that added up to this.. e.g. for Eggs, there's just normal food inflation, but then there's a massive avian flu outbreak that resulted in ~50 million birds culled in the US alone. It doesn't help but either way, prices are indeed up ~100% since pre-pandemic (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000708111).
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/11/22/23472207/bird-...
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/11/22/23472207/bird-...
eggs are pretty much immune from shrinkflation as well.
> I cannot imagine buying food at the dollar store even if you are poor.
If DOLLAR GENERAL qualifies, for many poor communities it's the only option in town.
If DOLLAR GENERAL qualifies, for many poor communities it's the only option in town.
Dollar General is not a dollar store. Traditionally a dollar store is a store where everything costs one dollar. Dollar General is a general store that has dollar in the name.
I used to go to the “99¢ Only” store and, let me tell you, everything doesn’t cost 99¢.
Frozen burritos did so I didn’t complain too much.
Frozen burritos did so I didn’t complain too much.
I once bought a pair of needle nose pliers at the dollar store (actually a dollar) back in the 90s. The first time I used them both the grips immediately bent under a small amount of force, which is actually so funny that I think I got my money's worth in the end.
Regardless, it’s often the only option.
<insert food desert>
But you see people with SNAP pushing around carts full of things that aren't eggs and beans and potatoes... and why would they? The maximum monthly benefit for a family of 4 is $939/month, you can buy whatever you want with that.
<insert excuse that poor people can't cook or don't have time or ...>
But you see people with SNAP pushing around carts full of things that aren't eggs and beans and potatoes... and why would they? The maximum monthly benefit for a family of 4 is $939/month, you can buy whatever you want with that.
<insert excuse that poor people can't cook or don't have time or ...>
The most corrosive idea in our society is the notion that someone somewhere is getting slightly more than they deserve, just slightly more than you think they earned through their god-given talents, and that it’s therefore worth trying to correct at huge expense, because we certainly can’t have that tiny bit of unfairness in the universe.
And the correction, when applied, is always to the detriment of a huge number of other people who actually needed the help.
This is how we get means-testing, SALT caps, and bad immigration law. We have got to be more humane than this.
And the correction, when applied, is always to the detriment of a huge number of other people who actually needed the help.
This is how we get means-testing, SALT caps, and bad immigration law. We have got to be more humane than this.
>The most corrosive idea in our society is the notion that someone somewhere is getting slightly more than they deserve, just slightly more than you think they earned through their god-given talents, and that it’s therefore worth trying to correct at huge expense, because we certainly can’t have that tiny bit of unfairness in the universe.
Maybe. But this is how America works. We wont let you starve to death. If you're truly physically disabled, we won't leave you to die. But beyond that it's up to you. And in exchange, what's "up to you" is limitless and celebrated and compensated endlessly. Other societies make this tradeoff in a different direction. But I'm happy there's at least one place on earth that doesn't.
Maybe. But this is how America works. We wont let you starve to death. If you're truly physically disabled, we won't leave you to die. But beyond that it's up to you. And in exchange, what's "up to you" is limitless and celebrated and compensated endlessly. Other societies make this tradeoff in a different direction. But I'm happy there's at least one place on earth that doesn't.
The last number I’d heard was that around 100/year starve to death in the US, but I suspect that number is higher when including deaths from folks who incur fatal health conditions from insufficient nutrition.
>> But beyond that it's up to you
It's up to you, but please be aware that you will be playing a rigged game.
In this game, those with money will be competing with you. They will also make the rules. In most situations they will also be referee.
Therefore please make every effort to be born into at least some money. That is, by far, your best chance of success.
Of course we are not heartless. We let a tiny number of previously poor people rise up to serve as both inspiration, and example to the rest. This helps re-enforce the idea that you too can rise up if you just worked "a little bit harder."
Unfortunately we cannot raise the standard of living for everyone - since most of you simply don't deserve it. Plus your cheap labour is necessary for our current comfort levels.
But I sleep well at night since my life is completely deserved, clearly we all had the same opportunities, I just worked harder than you did.
It's up to you, but please be aware that you will be playing a rigged game.
In this game, those with money will be competing with you. They will also make the rules. In most situations they will also be referee.
Therefore please make every effort to be born into at least some money. That is, by far, your best chance of success.
Of course we are not heartless. We let a tiny number of previously poor people rise up to serve as both inspiration, and example to the rest. This helps re-enforce the idea that you too can rise up if you just worked "a little bit harder."
Unfortunately we cannot raise the standard of living for everyone - since most of you simply don't deserve it. Plus your cheap labour is necessary for our current comfort levels.
But I sleep well at night since my life is completely deserved, clearly we all had the same opportunities, I just worked harder than you did.
>Unfortunately we cannot raise the standard of living for everyone
The standard of living has been rising constantly throughout American history
The standard of living has been rising constantly throughout American history
Indeed, as it has been doing globally. There's no doubt that a pauper today lives like a king compared to just a couple centuries ago.
Perhaps by statement is better said as "we can't raise the standard at the same rate for everyone."
This isn't a universal rule though. Many countries have raised the standards of the poor in proportion to the rich. But you'll see fewer billionaire yachts or private jets in those places too.
Perhaps by statement is better said as "we can't raise the standard at the same rate for everyone."
This isn't a universal rule though. Many countries have raised the standards of the poor in proportion to the rich. But you'll see fewer billionaire yachts or private jets in those places too.
> We wont let you starve to death.
Yes you will
> If you're truly physically disabled, we won't leave you to die.
Yes you will
Do you really think that as a nation that lacks so much empathy for the poor, THAT’S where we suddenly realize someone’s humanity? No, in fact if someone is at this point, most Americans would probably not even notice (and some amount would likely celebrate) their passing. If the safety net lets someone fall this far, why would it catch them now?
Just think of the blind eye we turn to people experiencing homelessness— as if their neighbors aren’t already wishing them harm while sipping a bottle of wine with their family and friends during their holiday dinner.
Yes you will
> If you're truly physically disabled, we won't leave you to die.
Yes you will
Do you really think that as a nation that lacks so much empathy for the poor, THAT’S where we suddenly realize someone’s humanity? No, in fact if someone is at this point, most Americans would probably not even notice (and some amount would likely celebrate) their passing. If the safety net lets someone fall this far, why would it catch them now?
Just think of the blind eye we turn to people experiencing homelessness— as if their neighbors aren’t already wishing them harm while sipping a bottle of wine with their family and friends during their holiday dinner.
You seriously have no clue how this stuff really works.
I used to live in downtown Phoenix and I’d have people trying to feed me when I was just riding my bike random places. Like, I’d be half a block away and they’d shout out “hey, man, you hungry?” And this is just people who would roam around looking for people to help not counting the permanent places that served food on a regular basis.
If you’re willing to accept help ‘merica has enough to go around but you have to show up to the shelters sober and have to at least put in the barest minimum of effort to maybe, just maybe, appear to be trying to improve your lot in life.
I spent nine years driving a cab and a big chunk of that job was hauling people to/from medical appointments because they didn’t have transportation (or couldn’t afford to drive) and the state was paying for their medical care. Once Uber/Lyft came to town that’s pretty much all I did and I kept pretty busy.
I used to live in downtown Phoenix and I’d have people trying to feed me when I was just riding my bike random places. Like, I’d be half a block away and they’d shout out “hey, man, you hungry?” And this is just people who would roam around looking for people to help not counting the permanent places that served food on a regular basis.
If you’re willing to accept help ‘merica has enough to go around but you have to show up to the shelters sober and have to at least put in the barest minimum of effort to maybe, just maybe, appear to be trying to improve your lot in life.
I spent nine years driving a cab and a big chunk of that job was hauling people to/from medical appointments because they didn’t have transportation (or couldn’t afford to drive) and the state was paying for their medical care. Once Uber/Lyft came to town that’s pretty much all I did and I kept pretty busy.
> We wont let you starve to death. If you're truly physically disabled, we won't leave you to die.
Unless you're a diabetic, then fuck you. Die.
Unless you're a diabetic, then fuck you. Die.
I mean —- have you been poor? I can say when my mom and I were dirt poor, we literally didn’t have the time. My mom didn’t take benefits mainly due to pride, but all the foods you mention were way out of her time / price bucket
What time/price bucket do bananas fall in?
> What time/price bucket do bananas fall in?
Somewhere well below frozen burritos and pizzas: https://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/
Somewhere well below frozen burritos and pizzas: https://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/
True, banana + frozen burritos / pizza for protein and fat are an excellent combo in this situation
Oh, bananas are god tier — I probably ate 2-3 a day for years. But you can’t live off them. 5+ Bananas a day really made me feel sick during some lean times. Nutritionally also pretty poor for sustenance, no fat or protein, and they digest very quickly.
Just saying - when you work 60 hours/week you really don't have time to cook. Cooking is not an option. Not cooking is not out of choice.
pouring water and olive oil into some self-raising wholemeal flour and throwing it on a hot pan to make naans (90 seconds to cook) twice a day, comes in under $1/day and 30min/day with washup. for one person
[deleted]
You are both right.
Cooking takes time. Working too many hours (for good reasons) robs you of that time. Cooking adds other time-consumers, shopping, washing up and so on.
Equally, once you have a skill set, cooking doesn't need to take a lot of time. If you are lucky you learned to cook growing up, or if you have the time you can learn to cook as an adult.
While your nan breads are perhaps not the best example of quick cooking (flour isn't necessarily the best starting point) it's true that stir-frying some veggies, or anything with eggs etc can be done in a couple minutes.
But cooking quickly takes skills, and practice, and acquiring those takes time.
As an anecdote we required our children to learn to cook young, and by 13 cook a regular meal for the family once a week. Ultimately some enjoyed the process more than others, but all are able to feed themselves quickly, and with little effort. If I have one bit of useful advice it us to encourage kids to learn how to cook for themselves, and for others. And yes, alas, I'm aware of the cost in money and time in doing that.
Cooking takes time. Working too many hours (for good reasons) robs you of that time. Cooking adds other time-consumers, shopping, washing up and so on.
Equally, once you have a skill set, cooking doesn't need to take a lot of time. If you are lucky you learned to cook growing up, or if you have the time you can learn to cook as an adult.
While your nan breads are perhaps not the best example of quick cooking (flour isn't necessarily the best starting point) it's true that stir-frying some veggies, or anything with eggs etc can be done in a couple minutes.
But cooking quickly takes skills, and practice, and acquiring those takes time.
As an anecdote we required our children to learn to cook young, and by 13 cook a regular meal for the family once a week. Ultimately some enjoyed the process more than others, but all are able to feed themselves quickly, and with little effort. If I have one bit of useful advice it us to encourage kids to learn how to cook for themselves, and for others. And yes, alas, I'm aware of the cost in money and time in doing that.
[deleted]
I work 60 hours a week and cook most days.
Where it gets hard is over 70 hours a week.
Where it gets hard is over 70 hours a week.
I believe the focus on comparing 'hours worked' is very damaging to our culture. The effect is that employment becomes a competition, where 'they who works the most hours are the most valuable/noble'.
In reality people who work more than the standard working hours (40) are effectively undercutting everyone else in terms of price per hour worked. Working more hours for the same pay is not something to be proud about; it is an attack on you colleagues. The overwork behaviour causes increased competition, where everybody's expected work hours will silently increase ('why don't you work as hard as they are'). The employer will of course be happy, because they get a better deal. Giving away your time for free shouldn't be something honorable.
It's a bit different if you are getting compensated for the extra hours, e.g. if you are the founder of the company, or are getting good overtime pay. But I still think there needs to be moderation.
Emolyees should be working less than they are today, not more. 40 hours is already too much to have a balanced life. I think a more reasonable level would be somewhere around 4x7 = 28 hours per week. But instead of moving an inch towards that level, our societies have gone in the other direction, where unpaid overtime is the norm.
I hope we can see a attitude change about work / overwork in my lifetime. But I'm not very optimistic about that.
In reality people who work more than the standard working hours (40) are effectively undercutting everyone else in terms of price per hour worked. Working more hours for the same pay is not something to be proud about; it is an attack on you colleagues. The overwork behaviour causes increased competition, where everybody's expected work hours will silently increase ('why don't you work as hard as they are'). The employer will of course be happy, because they get a better deal. Giving away your time for free shouldn't be something honorable.
It's a bit different if you are getting compensated for the extra hours, e.g. if you are the founder of the company, or are getting good overtime pay. But I still think there needs to be moderation.
Emolyees should be working less than they are today, not more. 40 hours is already too much to have a balanced life. I think a more reasonable level would be somewhere around 4x7 = 28 hours per week. But instead of moving an inch towards that level, our societies have gone in the other direction, where unpaid overtime is the norm.
I hope we can see a attitude change about work / overwork in my lifetime. But I'm not very optimistic about that.
You're an engineer at Google working 60h weeks meaning either Google is scamming you or you're scamming yourself.
And more importantly, you and I as engineers are going to operate in drastically different mental spaces than someone that has to work 60h weeks solely to survive. Someone that needs to work between multiple jobs, or deal with physically intensive jobs or customer facing jobs are not going to able to turn off after work as easily.
My parents were fishermen and would spend way more than that out in the bay due to the necessities of the job. When you're done with that work, after hauling bait and working on the boat you have zero energy to do much else afterwards.
And more importantly, you and I as engineers are going to operate in drastically different mental spaces than someone that has to work 60h weeks solely to survive. Someone that needs to work between multiple jobs, or deal with physically intensive jobs or customer facing jobs are not going to able to turn off after work as easily.
My parents were fishermen and would spend way more than that out in the bay due to the necessities of the job. When you're done with that work, after hauling bait and working on the boat you have zero energy to do much else afterwards.
[deleted]
Lots of times you're better off getting stuff from the thrift store. Lots of lightly used household items, cheap as dirt.
Thrift stores in rich neighborhoods have significantly higher quality of items than ones in poor neighborhoods. I would not recommend shopping at poor thrift stores.
I've been in thrift stores in both neighborhoods. Found lots of nice stuff in the poor one.
I sometimes go to thrift stores when visiting new places just to see what is there and my experience is different. Goodwill/thrift stores in richer cities/areas are better. I went to a goodwill in Atlanta in a poorer area in May and the clothes we pretty worn. The prices were cheaper but you can't fake being middle class in most of the stuff sold there. You will just look poor and that's how many would treat you.
Then you haven't been to an actually poor one. Every single one I've been to looks like that one room in an old person's house, full of stuff that no one could absolutely give a shit about and priced WAY the fuck over what it should be.
If you saw the parking lot and the people in that store, you'd know it was a poor one.
In my experience, this is true for just about every type of store. Especially grocery stores. I live on Federal in Denver, and the selection relative to some of the wealthier suburbs is atrocious. The past few years have made me wonder who gets the job of ensuring poor neighborhoods get screwed in the face of nationwide shortages of items.
Try running a store in a poor neighborhood and it will soon be obvious why they are the way they are.
Fine, the pursuit of profit over all else forces people to make decisions like screwing entire neighborhoods out of access to basic quality food and other goods.
Is that better?
Is that better?
Opening a store is not screwing entire neighborhoods.
Much of the food at dollar stores is the same stuff you'll find in regular grocery stores, just in smaller packages.
I always got the impression that it was largely things with a long shelf life, to minimise waste. Which doesn't discount what you've said, but just worth asserting that it's a subset (not always healthy) of regular grocery stuff AND in smaller packages.
I would say 90% of the food in dollar stores is high in oil, salt, or sugar and most of the time all three. Most of it is cookies, crackers, potato chips, sauces, soda, etc.
I have seen a few with decent staples such as wheat bread, eggs, meat but that is small pct of all foods. Rarely vegetables (or ever). Would be hard to eat healthy if got most of your food there.
Regular supermarkets have plenty of bad food but still wide selection of nutritious food.
Regular supermarkets have plenty of bad food but still wide selection of nutritious food.
Dollar stores are awesome. If you buy crap at the dollar stores, then you are buying crap, but if you buy Cheetos at the dollar store or at the regular grocery shop, they are the same crap. Crap is crap no matter where you buy it.
Any food will make you sick. You can find crap food at any store. Dollar stores don't have the monopoly on that. I think that 90% of "food" at ANY store is crap.
Food is extremely inexpensive if you learn how to make stuff yourself and don't buy anything that is prepackaged. Don't buy Thousand Island dressing for example, make it from base ingredients. Instead of paying $3 at a regular grocery store, you can make it for 25 cents, if that. Croutons? Costs $2.50 at the store, or make them at home in your oven for 10 cents or whatever. All you need is bread and spices, and as I said, this is not a $2.40 savings, oh no. it is a 2,500% return on your money.
Any food will make you sick. You can find crap food at any store. Dollar stores don't have the monopoly on that. I think that 90% of "food" at ANY store is crap.
Food is extremely inexpensive if you learn how to make stuff yourself and don't buy anything that is prepackaged. Don't buy Thousand Island dressing for example, make it from base ingredients. Instead of paying $3 at a regular grocery store, you can make it for 25 cents, if that. Croutons? Costs $2.50 at the store, or make them at home in your oven for 10 cents or whatever. All you need is bread and spices, and as I said, this is not a $2.40 savings, oh no. it is a 2,500% return on your money.
Don't forget to include the value of the time spent making food yourself.
Yes, but that is often calculated incorrectly. Like it might take 4 hours to make beans, and people say that. But really, it takes 15 minutes. This is the amount of time to sort and was the dried beans, put the beans in the water. That's it. Then you let the beans simmer for 3 1/2 hours. But people will count the entire 4 hours as time they spent making food. Not saying you do that, but many do. Also, the more one cooks, the faster it gets. First time it might take 45 minutes to make something, but after you make it 15 times, it gets down to 10 minutes. Also, it is about making staple foods, like pasta. Of course if you make some complex dish for the first and only time, every night, that will take a lot of time. But if one has many easy dishes to make, then it is fast. I like oil and balsamic vinegar dressing - to make it from scratch takes me less than a minute to make a big jar of it that will last me 2 or 3 months.
It really does not take too long to make one's own food, if one does it correctly.
It really does not take too long to make one's own food, if one does it correctly.
Simple things that have little effect for an upper middle class family can completely devastate a poor one.
If you own a 20 y.o. car that you bought for 3k to commute to work it will for sure break down. You go to the mechanic and they quote you 4k, while you live paycheck by paycheck.
Now you cannot drive to work. In non coastal America, that typically has 0 public transportation, you are now convicted to bankruptcy.
An upper middle class family just buys a new car every 5-6 years and they avoid most of the maintenance.
If you own a 20 y.o. car that you bought for 3k to commute to work it will for sure break down. You go to the mechanic and they quote you 4k, while you live paycheck by paycheck.
Now you cannot drive to work. In non coastal America, that typically has 0 public transportation, you are now convicted to bankruptcy.
An upper middle class family just buys a new car every 5-6 years and they avoid most of the maintenance.
You aren't convicted to bankruptcy, that would be too nice if it were just that. In reality no work = no income = evicted or foreclosed and kicked out on the street with no belongings = no permanent address = no way to pass a job interview or get a job = no way to survive and get back to where you were.
There are certain cliffs in American society where if you fall off you will almost certainly never get back on top without someone stepping in and giving you direct support.
There are certain cliffs in American society where if you fall off you will almost certainly never get back on top without someone stepping in and giving you direct support.
Note that this problem also ties into American (really post WW2) cultural expectations, which are completely out of sync with the rest of the world. In the rest of the world, you either have a social-safety net from your community of your govt.
Somehow, America has neither.
In the rest of the world, if you lose your job -> you move back in with your parents.
In completely individualistic societies -> your govt. provides welfare by taxing the generation with wealth (your parents generation, ie. Age. 50+ people)
___
On the contrary, America allows the age 50+ homeowners to place unprecedented restrictions on housing stock, further increasing their wealth while paying a minority of taxes (prop 13). At the same time, it's the generation that 'kicks their child out at 18', in an era when gas, infrastructure maintenance, university & housing are no longer 'practically free'.
Somehow, America has neither.
In the rest of the world, if you lose your job -> you move back in with your parents.
In completely individualistic societies -> your govt. provides welfare by taxing the generation with wealth (your parents generation, ie. Age. 50+ people)
___
On the contrary, America allows the age 50+ homeowners to place unprecedented restrictions on housing stock, further increasing their wealth while paying a minority of taxes (prop 13). At the same time, it's the generation that 'kicks their child out at 18', in an era when gas, infrastructure maintenance, university & housing are no longer 'practically free'.
I spent half my twenties driving beater 20 year old cars in non-costal America. Both of which I carried fire extinguishers in - because one of them had a habit of springing exciting fuel leaks in the engine compartment.
The answer to making it work, was of course community. That and $99 per year triple A's free towing. People to get you places when the car is down, friends who look under your car, see that the stick is disconnected from the transmission, and bolt it back on with some bolts they find by the side of the road. Friends with the same model of car who know where the good garage mechanics are.
The answer to making it work, was of course community. That and $99 per year triple A's free towing. People to get you places when the car is down, friends who look under your car, see that the stick is disconnected from the transmission, and bolt it back on with some bolts they find by the side of the road. Friends with the same model of car who know where the good garage mechanics are.
And here I am driving a 17 year old car which is worth less than I make in a week. It doesn’t really break ever either, just some small stuff over the years.
You’ve obviously never lived somewhere that salts during the winter. Where road salt is used you don’t see many vehicles that old.
The trick is to buy used cars from regions that don't have salts during the winter. If I look at cars imported from US, I look at ones from Texas and etc.
I brought a pickup truck from CA to the northeast and promptly sold it for $2000 more than I bought it for 4 years prior. Inventory issues were part of it but indeed the rust free frame was highly desirable.
That’s not at all obvious to me, who drives a 18 year old Honda that’s lived its entire life in upstate NY, NH, and MA.
It’s true that rust will likely be the eventual reason to retire it, but probably not for another 5-10 years.
It’s true that rust will likely be the eventual reason to retire it, but probably not for another 5-10 years.
Go outside and count the cars that are older than 15 years. Then go to California and do it. It’s different.
No one claimed that salt usage made no difference. That's a far lesser claim than concluding that someone driving a 17 year old car has obviously never lived where the roads are salted.
Despite being a lower percentage than CA, there are plenty of perfectly usable 17+ year old cars on the roads in New England.
Despite being a lower percentage than CA, there are plenty of perfectly usable 17+ year old cars on the roads in New England.
Eastern Europe represent. We use lots of road salt and plenty 17 year old cars.
It's not really comparable. Northern US and Canada use way more salt on roads and it's not the regular salt (it's forbidden) but a pretty aggressive mix of various salts.
I've never seen so many not so old but already rusty cars as in Quebec, Canada.
I've never seen so many not so old but already rusty cars as in Quebec, Canada.
I drive a 2004 corolla that I bought off the lot and I'll probably drive it for another 10-20 years.
But I also grew up dirt poor and understand the difference between where I'm at now and where my family was at when I was young, in terms of vehicles.
There's a world of difference between an older, well-maintained, vehicle, and buying a car for $300 off the side of the road.
But I also grew up dirt poor and understand the difference between where I'm at now and where my family was at when I was young, in terms of vehicles.
There's a world of difference between an older, well-maintained, vehicle, and buying a car for $300 off the side of the road.
Our 2005 Honda CR-V was ~$7K 11 years ago and all the maintenance (except tires) has been easily done by me with no unusual tools needed. It’s probably a $3K car now and there’s literally thousands of them around.
It’s not that hard nor time-consuming to do basic maintenance and it saves low four-figures per year.
It’s not that hard nor time-consuming to do basic maintenance and it saves low four-figures per year.
Where are you going to do maintenance? In your garage or driveway in the home you own? That's a pretty big privilege.
The reality is a low income person is living in low income housing, typically large apartment complexes. These places have strict rules against doing car maintenance and work in their parking lots. In addition it's a huge privilege to have weekend and free time to do car work yourself, not to mention buying the tools and materials necessary for it.
Working on cars is a hobby for middle class folks nowadays, it's not a solution to the general problem that low income people need reliable transportation in most of America.
The reality is a low income person is living in low income housing, typically large apartment complexes. These places have strict rules against doing car maintenance and work in their parking lots. In addition it's a huge privilege to have weekend and free time to do car work yourself, not to mention buying the tools and materials necessary for it.
Working on cars is a hobby for middle class folks nowadays, it's not a solution to the general problem that low income people need reliable transportation in most of America.
Even my not low-income ($3-$5k / mo) apartment complex forbids this.
If you want car maintenance, or to run your own business, or any number of other things, you need to first own a home, apparently. And that just furthers the article's point…
If you want car maintenance, or to run your own business, or any number of other things, you need to first own a home, apparently. And that just furthers the article's point…
I would have to imagine a $3-5k type place would be even less likely to allow this.
Honestly, a parking garage. I’ve done a LOT of small car repairs, installed exhausts, simple mods, etc for people in a random retail parking garage after hours. As long as you aren’t disassembling the motor and you’re not an asshole the security guard making $12/hr driving a hoopty in the exact same boat as you is not going to hassle you.
It’s a lot less fun than doing it in a proper shop with a lift and power tools, but given enough effort you can do nearly anything with jackstands, a trolley jack, and basic hand tools.
It’s a lot less fun than doing it in a proper shop with a lift and power tools, but given enough effort you can do nearly anything with jackstands, a trolley jack, and basic hand tools.
The great thing about a vehicle is that it’s mobile and can take itself to a place away from the tightest/most enforced of restrictions.
I’ve done more maintenance on unpaved surfaces or even parked in front of signs saying I couldn’t do it than I care to recall.
If the choices are between a $40 pad slap and a $400+ repair shop visit, a lot people will find a way to do the former.
I’ve done more maintenance on unpaved surfaces or even parked in front of signs saying I couldn’t do it than I care to recall.
If the choices are between a $40 pad slap and a $400+ repair shop visit, a lot people will find a way to do the former.
Parking Garages. Autozone Parking Lot. Saw two guys detailing their cars and adding trim to them in the parking lot of a trail head in seattle earlier this week.
I once replaced an alternator in an AutoZone parking lot. At the time I had a '97 Ford Ranger XLT, which I got used in '03.
It had broken down outside of Phoenix as I was driving cross-country from Ohio to LA. I got towed to the parking lot, used most of my remaining money to get the alternator, and then hung around til they closed up so that I could borrow an employees tools and a light for a pack of cigarettes. That truck is still in service today, though I sold it back in 2011.
It had broken down outside of Phoenix as I was driving cross-country from Ohio to LA. I got towed to the parking lot, used most of my remaining money to get the alternator, and then hung around til they closed up so that I could borrow an employees tools and a light for a pack of cigarettes. That truck is still in service today, though I sold it back in 2011.
The assumption that a 2005 CR-V in reasonable condition is a $3k car was probably a decent one 3 years ago. Less so now if my recent auto shopping is any indication.
I like driving older cars into the well-maintained 200-300k mile range myself and I heartily agree that it’s the economical choice. I’ve financed a year-long sabbatical by driving a ‘93 sedan, so the potential gains really are not only four figures per year, they can reach into five figures.
At the same time the GP’s projection of catastrophic failure rings true to me — almost every car I’ve had reached this point. Each time I’ve also either had the resources to deal with the problem or generous help to fall back on, but it’s easy to imagine what it would be like if that had not been the case and it isn’t pretty. And it’s usually time-consuming and inconvenient to find the next bargain old auto as well.
I like driving older cars into the well-maintained 200-300k mile range myself and I heartily agree that it’s the economical choice. I’ve financed a year-long sabbatical by driving a ‘93 sedan, so the potential gains really are not only four figures per year, they can reach into five figures.
At the same time the GP’s projection of catastrophic failure rings true to me — almost every car I’ve had reached this point. Each time I’ve also either had the resources to deal with the problem or generous help to fall back on, but it’s easy to imagine what it would be like if that had not been the case and it isn’t pretty. And it’s usually time-consuming and inconvenient to find the next bargain old auto as well.
Additional point, mant people are not mentally or physically capable of doing vehicle maintenance.
Poor folks find mechanics who will install used parts. Or work for beer.
There are lots of these.
There are lots of these.
The labor shortage impacted mechanics available too, it's now a $75/hr job; which inclines one to work more paying gigs.
Even historically, you often got what you paid for. Turns out that the friend that takes beer as payment and doesn't have a shop manual is less likely to figure out the vacuum system correctly in not their car.
Heck, I don't even trust many of the $75/hr oil change place to not bugar up my drain bolt.
Even historically, you often got what you paid for. Turns out that the friend that takes beer as payment and doesn't have a shop manual is less likely to figure out the vacuum system correctly in not their car.
Heck, I don't even trust many of the $75/hr oil change place to not bugar up my drain bolt.
[deleted]
If you dabble with old cars, always have two. Then if one breaks down you have a spare while you fix the broken one. Do it yourself if you can.
Car dependence is such a massive drain on productivity and wealth in the US
It is worse than the bar chart implies. If you are rich and your housing is costing $5k a month, because you want to live centrally, or in a massive house, you have the choice to downsize and put up with living not so centrally, or a smaller house. The poor person might already be in the cheapest accommodation it is possible to get.
In Australia for example, if someone gets a government allowance due to unemployment, it will cover renting a room, and then maybe $10 or $20 a week for food or something like that. Basically it doesn't cover the cost of living. They can't downsize. To what? There is a base level of accommodation cost.
Similarly there are a bunch of other jettisonable features of the rich person's life. Their health insurance is better, they buy convenient and funky food that is delivered fresh, they have nicer cars and so on.
In Australia for example, if someone gets a government allowance due to unemployment, it will cover renting a room, and then maybe $10 or $20 a week for food or something like that. Basically it doesn't cover the cost of living. They can't downsize. To what? There is a base level of accommodation cost.
Similarly there are a bunch of other jettisonable features of the rich person's life. Their health insurance is better, they buy convenient and funky food that is delivered fresh, they have nicer cars and so on.
True, but many of them think they're richer than they are, and develop dependencies on things that max out all of their income and going into so much debt that they don't realize how little volatility they can actually handle.
On this post,
- the first level commenter: Empathetically describes the problems of a person/family in poverty.
- the first level commenter: Empathetically describes the problems of a person/family in poverty.
- the second level commenter: No I disagree with what you are saying. Here is how they should have approached the problem.
It's important to approach it from both POVs.
We need to reiterate that, as humans, we are all the same in that our struggles emit terrible emotions that either deprive us of our liberties or freedoms (freedom to spend time doing what you want when you want to do it). And doing this might turn people to different political parties, causes, and charities that will help achieve this.
But going straight to "everyone gets free rent" isn't exactly likely, so throwing out ideas that might only requires maybe 10 years of political shenanigans to move the needle is better than going far into the unrealistic category.
We need to reiterate that, as humans, we are all the same in that our struggles emit terrible emotions that either deprive us of our liberties or freedoms (freedom to spend time doing what you want when you want to do it). And doing this might turn people to different political parties, causes, and charities that will help achieve this.
But going straight to "everyone gets free rent" isn't exactly likely, so throwing out ideas that might only requires maybe 10 years of political shenanigans to move the needle is better than going far into the unrealistic category.
We haven’t really moved the needle on anything in regards to lowering the COL (except, maybe and in only some circumstances, healthcare, but look at how far we have to go and how bad the political backlash was) in… at least two decades? Maybe three?
Federal minimum wage hasn’t even increased from $7.25 since 2009. In 1997 it was $5.15 (or $9.55 in 2022 dollars, so even 25 years ago we paid workers more than we do today)
Maybe it’s time to start putting those crazy ideas out there, because the status quo is proving more and more unsustainable
Federal minimum wage hasn’t even increased from $7.25 since 2009. In 1997 it was $5.15 (or $9.55 in 2022 dollars, so even 25 years ago we paid workers more than we do today)
Maybe it’s time to start putting those crazy ideas out there, because the status quo is proving more and more unsustainable
Thank you for pointing this out. I am disappointed by how ignorant so many commenters are when it comes to socio-economic issues.
That's because many of them from the Elon Musk school of problem solving.
"You're poor? Work harder. Get a better job. First principles."
"You're unhealthy? Exercise more. Eat better food. First principles."
"You're poor? Work harder. Get a better job. First principles."
"You're unhealthy? Exercise more. Eat better food. First principles."
I've never been poor in the sense that when I was young and didn't have much or any money to my name, my parents were well into the middle class and if my back was against the wall (or even near it), they were a phone call away. That being said, at that time, fucking overdraft fees. I remember doing the math of whether I could afford something on my debit card and the times I was wrong, not realizing it for a few days (had to go to an ATM to check balance back in the day) and each transaction with a balance below 0 incurred a $35 penalty. How could that be legal? It said everything you needed to know about our laws really.
I spent far too long in a job where I was supposedly earning around the average salary for my city. But I had almost zero disposable income because the cost of rent was so high. People just one paygrade higher than me were able to afford vacations all over the place, because a tiny bit of extra pay each payday meant more disposable income.
If( (salary - requirements) == 0 ){ You are screwed. }
If( (salary - requirements) > 0 ){ It snowballs. }
Luckily I quit, and now earn more than the directors where I worked before. :)
If( (salary - requirements) == 0 ){ You are screwed. }
If( (salary - requirements) > 0 ){ It snowballs. }
Luckily I quit, and now earn more than the directors where I worked before. :)
That reminds me of the quote from David Copperfield: “Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”
Translation for those unfamiliar with obsolete English currency: 19 pounds 19 shillings 6 pence is 6 pence short of 20 pounds. 20 pounds 0 shillings 6 pence is 6 pence over 20 pounds. The point is that the very small amount of 6 pence over or under your income makes all the difference.
Translation for those unfamiliar with obsolete English currency: 19 pounds 19 shillings 6 pence is 6 pence short of 20 pounds. 20 pounds 0 shillings 6 pence is 6 pence over 20 pounds. The point is that the very small amount of 6 pence over or under your income makes all the difference.
People of all income groups in the US seem to have problems living within their means.
My co-worker and I were talking about how much we spend on groceries per week, and it turns out they spend about twice as much as we do (and we could cut some corners). I'm sure my mother spent half of what we spend.
She buys the big container of store brand oatmeal, we buy "better oats". My co-worker buys the cups of individually portioned servings.
My mother buys the store brand chocolate milk, we buy fairlife, my co-worker buys individual fairlifes.
$8 bottles of salad dressing, more expansive cuts of meat, $15 bags of frozen shrimp, it all adds up. And this is just groceries.
My co-worker and I were talking about how much we spend on groceries per week, and it turns out they spend about twice as much as we do (and we could cut some corners). I'm sure my mother spent half of what we spend.
She buys the big container of store brand oatmeal, we buy "better oats". My co-worker buys the cups of individually portioned servings.
My mother buys the store brand chocolate milk, we buy fairlife, my co-worker buys individual fairlifes.
$8 bottles of salad dressing, more expansive cuts of meat, $15 bags of frozen shrimp, it all adds up. And this is just groceries.
I think the article is speaking more about it being expensive to be poor due to options that are not available.
The "living within their means" examples you give sound like a person having the option of spending less money, but choosing not to (or not being aware they had an option that they did).
The "living within their means" examples you give sound like a person having the option of spending less money, but choosing not to (or not being aware they had an option that they did).
The article is not about folk tales of "living within your means". It is about paying more for the same thing because of various factors like whether you can afford to transport yourself to a better store, whether you have the space to transport and store bulk goods, or the working funds to afford bulk purchases, and whether your dwelling even has a kitchen or refrigerator.
> It is about paying more for the same thing because of various factors like whether you can afford to transport yourself to a better store
What's a "better store"? I've heard people say Target is better to shop at than Walmart, but Target's prices are usually higher than Walmart's.
What's a "better store"? I've heard people say Target is better to shop at than Walmart, but Target's prices are usually higher than Walmart's.
A large chain grocery store will usually have better prices than a corner grocer / convenient / liquor store. Some people have to do some grocery shopping there because they can't commute to a Jewel, Safeway, etc.
people are not poor because they spend too much on groceries. There's already a non-trivial amount of effort spent on making groceries more affordable for those with limited budgets (e.g. food stamps, coupons, offers, etc). Were it simply a case of buying cheaper food then we would have already solved that problem. Rather; it is more complex and opportunity is a more significant factor.
Regardless the article discusses many grocery issues that poorer people suffer such as more expensive supply (along with limited access to superior supplies), less choice, inability to buy in bulk as well as restrictions on cooking or being time-poor.
Regardless the article discusses many grocery issues that poorer people suffer such as more expensive supply (along with limited access to superior supplies), less choice, inability to buy in bulk as well as restrictions on cooking or being time-poor.
I don't understand why well-heeled penny-pinching skinflints always think they have so much virtue to teach others.
I can’t find much in this article about why food deserts exist in the first place. One big reason is it costs more to deliver food into high crime areas. It costs more to secure the property and employees who work in those areas.
I find there are lots of omissions like this in addressing societal issues these days. Hard to pin down why.
A bit like how CVS closed 6 stores in San Francisco in Jan. 2022 because of unstopable crime.
It always comes down to education. An educated poor person can pull herself out of poverty within one generation. My parents were dirt poor because their country was devastated by war, but they were able to concentrate on education and were middle class, and now me and my siblings are 1%ers.
The problem is the poor areas in the US are exceedingly violent and basically succumb to victimization to explain why they can’t get out of poverty. If they can’t have safety and the culture is to just blame others and not try to better themselves, this is a perfect way to create generational poverty.
I think we need to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into the most economically devastated areas of the US and first create safe neighborhoods with jobs. Once kids can go to public schools and not worry about violence, that neighborhood will thrive. In order for that to happen we need to INVEST in those communities with more police and more jobs with middle class wages.
Instead of $100B to Ukraine we need to invest that money on Americans in South Side Chicago, where there are 50 shootings a weekend, and Baltimore that has live birth rates lower than 3rd world countries, and Missouri and Oakland, etc. Create Amazon warehouses there or whatever can create an impact immediately and then hire a ton of police officers from the community and train them (1 day of training a week). Within a generation it will change the entire city and you will have a thriving middle class where wss once generational poverty.
The problem is the poor areas in the US are exceedingly violent and basically succumb to victimization to explain why they can’t get out of poverty. If they can’t have safety and the culture is to just blame others and not try to better themselves, this is a perfect way to create generational poverty.
I think we need to invest hundreds of billions of dollars into the most economically devastated areas of the US and first create safe neighborhoods with jobs. Once kids can go to public schools and not worry about violence, that neighborhood will thrive. In order for that to happen we need to INVEST in those communities with more police and more jobs with middle class wages.
Instead of $100B to Ukraine we need to invest that money on Americans in South Side Chicago, where there are 50 shootings a weekend, and Baltimore that has live birth rates lower than 3rd world countries, and Missouri and Oakland, etc. Create Amazon warehouses there or whatever can create an impact immediately and then hire a ton of police officers from the community and train them (1 day of training a week). Within a generation it will change the entire city and you will have a thriving middle class where wss once generational poverty.
people won't get out of poverty working at amazon warehouses. America has always had enough money to do whatever it wants. We could spend money in Ukraine and Chicago if we cared to, but we just don't. This country will never solve the poverty problem, as there is no real interest in doing so to any significant level by those who could solve them.
Universal free health care, like the rest of the modern world. Free Education, like much of the modern world. An effective and cheap transportation system like most the modern world
Those things would make a pretty big impact. America doesn't believe in such things. It won't happen. America believes in the lottery system (not just thru tickets). You have a chance to be rich beyond your wildest imagination. But almost certainly won't be. and if you aren't, hit the road.
Universal free health care, like the rest of the modern world. Free Education, like much of the modern world. An effective and cheap transportation system like most the modern world
Those things would make a pretty big impact. America doesn't believe in such things. It won't happen. America believes in the lottery system (not just thru tickets). You have a chance to be rich beyond your wildest imagination. But almost certainly won't be. and if you aren't, hit the road.
> This country will never solve the poverty problem
When poverty is defined as the lower quintile of income, it cannot be solved. America's poor are the richest poor people in history. It's one reason why millions flood over the border to get in.
When poverty is defined as the lower quintile of income, it cannot be solved. America's poor are the richest poor people in history. It's one reason why millions flood over the border to get in.
Which is why the general sentiment in this thread is not to solve the poverty problem, but to solve the unaffordability problem, ie. living paycheck-to-paycheck with no liquid assets, and still having less than $50 at any point, maybe going through periods of high credit card usage and paying minimum payments to get through things like vehicle repairs.
How to get into the middle class in America:
1. stay in school, pay attention, get good grades
2. get a loan and go to college, major in something that pays well
3. don't do drugs
4. don't commit crimes
5. use birth control
It isn't rocket science.
1. stay in school, pay attention, get good grades
2. get a loan and go to college, major in something that pays well
3. don't do drugs
4. don't commit crimes
5. use birth control
It isn't rocket science.
Sure, your formula is not wrong. But its a bit like saying "it's easy to lose weight, eat less, eat better, exercise more." It might be simple, but it's not easy.
Going into the nuance of each step in your formula would result in a too-long post, but let's consider the first;
>> stay in school, pay attention, get good grades.
For various reasons this is easier to do for the rich, and harder for the poor. Better nutrition. Better home support if your parents were educated and have surplus time. Better access to ancillaries (books, stationery etc.) Less need for you to get a job to supplement family income. No need for you to act as day care to younger siblings. More reliable transport to and from school. Better sleep patterns in warm, secure, environment. Better infant nutrition resulting in well-developed current mental facilities. Better access to heath care, meaning fewer lost school days.
And so on.
Your formula is not wrong. But it is not easy. And every part of it is greased with money. The best indicator of success is the environment you are born into.
Going into the nuance of each step in your formula would result in a too-long post, but let's consider the first;
>> stay in school, pay attention, get good grades.
For various reasons this is easier to do for the rich, and harder for the poor. Better nutrition. Better home support if your parents were educated and have surplus time. Better access to ancillaries (books, stationery etc.) Less need for you to get a job to supplement family income. No need for you to act as day care to younger siblings. More reliable transport to and from school. Better sleep patterns in warm, secure, environment. Better infant nutrition resulting in well-developed current mental facilities. Better access to heath care, meaning fewer lost school days.
And so on.
Your formula is not wrong. But it is not easy. And every part of it is greased with money. The best indicator of success is the environment you are born into.
I didn't say it was easy. I said it was simple. These are all choices one makes.
The first step towards success is making the choice to own your choices, instead of blaming your parents, your school, etc.
Nobody makes people take drugs. They choose to.
The first step towards success is making the choice to own your choices, instead of blaming your parents, your school, etc.
Nobody makes people take drugs. They choose to.
I agree you have choices. It's just that those choices are easier, and simpler, the more money you have.
Incidentally the drug choice is less aligned with poverty. Middle class and rich people take plenty of drugs, including expensive ones like opiods and cocaine. Drugs more likely to be used by the less affluent (weed) is more actively enforced, including well understood disparities on racial and socio-economic lines.
But we digress, this is not about drugs. It's about the ability of people to succeed. And the playing field there is far from level.
Incidentally the drug choice is less aligned with poverty. Middle class and rich people take plenty of drugs, including expensive ones like opiods and cocaine. Drugs more likely to be used by the less affluent (weed) is more actively enforced, including well understood disparities on racial and socio-economic lines.
But we digress, this is not about drugs. It's about the ability of people to succeed. And the playing field there is far from level.
So don't smoke weed, and disparate enforcement won't matter.
I voted for the legalization of marijuana. That doesn't mean smoking weed is a good idea. It's expensive, too. Can't really claim one can't make ends meet when spending money on weed.
But as I wrote, we each make our choices.
I voted for the legalization of marijuana. That doesn't mean smoking weed is a good idea. It's expensive, too. Can't really claim one can't make ends meet when spending money on weed.
But as I wrote, we each make our choices.
It's worth stating clearly: the best predictor of poor health and other "failure" is being born into poverty. A predatory economic system will defend predatory economic mechanisms.
Such a system will even go to war to defend the "proper order of things".
> When you see or interact with someone who is down on their luck, remember that it probably wasn’t just one thing that put them in that situation.
Indeed.
Such a system will even go to war to defend the "proper order of things".
> When you see or interact with someone who is down on their luck, remember that it probably wasn’t just one thing that put them in that situation.
Indeed.
1. Yes, but schools can be incredibly bad. They are largely funded by local taxes and tend to be playgrounds for lunatic educational theories of both right and left. You need a big dose of luck to ride this train.
2. Assuming you can get the grades, without a library, internet, or a stable home life, sure. And that you can navigate the fafsa and the rest of the college bureaucracy, potentially without parental help (and god help you if you have an uncooperative parent and cant get the data).
3. Sure, assuming your home life is stable enough to keep you out of this. Harder if mom or dad is already neck deep in weed, meth, or opioids.
4. Sure, if we are talking about shoplifting or larceny. But a teen can be pulled over for riding in a car on the flimsiest of reasons, and if the cop doesnt like you, you can easily get sucked into the maw of the justice system. I think we've all seen enough video of police acting badly to know that things can easily go badly wrong in a heartbeat.
5. Yes, except that not every plan covers it, and sometimes it fails, and it is becoming increasingly hard to get a plan B, like literal plan B or abortion. Plus we may have higher rates of sexual crime.
All the things you say are correct, but the reality of being poor in America is much, much uglier than straightforward theory suggests.
2. Assuming you can get the grades, without a library, internet, or a stable home life, sure. And that you can navigate the fafsa and the rest of the college bureaucracy, potentially without parental help (and god help you if you have an uncooperative parent and cant get the data).
3. Sure, assuming your home life is stable enough to keep you out of this. Harder if mom or dad is already neck deep in weed, meth, or opioids.
4. Sure, if we are talking about shoplifting or larceny. But a teen can be pulled over for riding in a car on the flimsiest of reasons, and if the cop doesnt like you, you can easily get sucked into the maw of the justice system. I think we've all seen enough video of police acting badly to know that things can easily go badly wrong in a heartbeat.
5. Yes, except that not every plan covers it, and sometimes it fails, and it is becoming increasingly hard to get a plan B, like literal plan B or abortion. Plus we may have higher rates of sexual crime.
All the things you say are correct, but the reality of being poor in America is much, much uglier than straightforward theory suggests.
The schools are run by the teachers' union. If the schools are bad, it starts and ends with the union.
Yes, sometimes birth control fails, and there are sexual crimes. That doesn't explain teen pregnancy rates, though.
> without a library, internet, or a stable home life
The library, internet, or home life is simply not necessary to get good grades. The schools move along very, very slowly. 6 hours a day in class is enough time to learn it all several times over. If one pays attention.
> enough video
That implies that all the crime in poor neighborhoods is actually over-enforcement by the cops. That doesn't explain the bars on the windows.
> And that you can navigate the fafsa and the rest of the college bureaucracy, potentially without parental help
What do you need parental help for there? The colleges provide everything necessary. When I was in that situation, I sent a letter to each college asking for their admissions package. They mailed it to me. I followed the directions in it. Fulfilled the requirements. Wrote the essays. Filled in the forms. Sent it in. My parents did exactly none of it.
If one stayed in school K-12 and paid attention in class, one should be quite capable to handle applying to college.
Yes, sometimes birth control fails, and there are sexual crimes. That doesn't explain teen pregnancy rates, though.
> without a library, internet, or a stable home life
The library, internet, or home life is simply not necessary to get good grades. The schools move along very, very slowly. 6 hours a day in class is enough time to learn it all several times over. If one pays attention.
> enough video
That implies that all the crime in poor neighborhoods is actually over-enforcement by the cops. That doesn't explain the bars on the windows.
> And that you can navigate the fafsa and the rest of the college bureaucracy, potentially without parental help
What do you need parental help for there? The colleges provide everything necessary. When I was in that situation, I sent a letter to each college asking for their admissions package. They mailed it to me. I followed the directions in it. Fulfilled the requirements. Wrote the essays. Filled in the forms. Sent it in. My parents did exactly none of it.
If one stayed in school K-12 and paid attention in class, one should be quite capable to handle applying to college.
You need to watch Season 4 of The Wire.
Considering how many middle-class and upper-middle-class folks live paycheck-to-paycheck too, I don't think it an "unaffordability problem" -- it's a "missing social safety net" problem.
Many will always live paycheck to paycheck regardless of their income. The solution is to make financial disasters less devastating. "Unaffordability" is a separate, also extremely serious problem.
Many will always live paycheck to paycheck regardless of their income. The solution is to make financial disasters less devastating. "Unaffordability" is a separate, also extremely serious problem.
I think this is more a result of how easy it is to spend to your capacity; if you make $500 a month after rent, you're heavily incentivized to avoid any unnecessary spending to avoid either taking on unnecessary debt or hitting 0 in your checking account. but if you change jobs and now have $1000 a month after rent, you'll find ways to 'splurge' on your (short term) QOL by buying more things instead of putting that towards a savings account. The best way around this is to set hard limits for yourself, eg. splitting direct deposits via payroll or setting up rules in your bank to automatically transfer a portion of your paycheck to savings (This is not to say that the government should make it harder to spend money via some black magic or technological measures)
But you're right in that society could do better to set up safety nets so that losing your job doesn't mean impending doom in the form of crippling medical debt and being kicked out on the street. The government, even the republicans, know that this is vital to preventing a complete collapse of the middle and lower classes, given they ran the PPP loan and forgiveness programs, but it's applied selectively because the two party system allows our political leaders to turn a blind eye as long as the other side also doesn't advocate for improving the situation.
But you're right in that society could do better to set up safety nets so that losing your job doesn't mean impending doom in the form of crippling medical debt and being kicked out on the street. The government, even the republicans, know that this is vital to preventing a complete collapse of the middle and lower classes, given they ran the PPP loan and forgiveness programs, but it's applied selectively because the two party system allows our political leaders to turn a blind eye as long as the other side also doesn't advocate for improving the situation.
Many people who live paycheck to paycheck are not impoverished. They simply spend all they make. Giving them more money won't change anything.
Warehouses and employers with benefits (like healthcare, 2-4x minimum wage, retirement savings, and scholarships regularly offered) are definitely a way out of poverty.
There's a book written about how healthcare at Starbucks kept a man from poverty and changed his life from cancer.
What's been missed is that Chick-fil-A, in and out,McDonald's, Targets, Walmart, Publix jobs have some of the most opportunity for college aimed people. But sometimes the small local (without scholarship, or pays under the table) is a quick win (scholarship applications take additional effort and require 6+ months in the job).
But yet, universal healthcare, even Medicaid/Social security expanded to not have such a steep cliff would make stark difference.
There's a book written about how healthcare at Starbucks kept a man from poverty and changed his life from cancer.
What's been missed is that Chick-fil-A, in and out,McDonald's, Targets, Walmart, Publix jobs have some of the most opportunity for college aimed people. But sometimes the small local (without scholarship, or pays under the table) is a quick win (scholarship applications take additional effort and require 6+ months in the job).
But yet, universal healthcare, even Medicaid/Social security expanded to not have such a steep cliff would make stark difference.
You can quibble over who the employer. I don’t care if it’s Amazon or the federal government. Putting middle class jobs in these areas is important. Middle class jobs inherently means some form of health care.
Universal health care by itself won’t solve poverty.
Universal health care by itself won’t solve poverty.
Do you not completely lose faith in the country by saying only middle class and above can have healthcare? Or that healthcare is tied to full time employment in order to keep the masses grinding for the capitalist machine? Is that not fundamentally evil when there are better solutions out there?
You elide the impact of a stable two parent home.
No doubt education, hard work and grit are also at work here, but the facility of two incomes, two people to split housework and childcare duties are an enormous boon. Statistically, two parent married families who have children after high school are almost never below the poverty line.
I offer that as descriptive and not proscriptive - I don’t know the solution. But I know two parents in a stable household make it much easier.
No doubt education, hard work and grit are also at work here, but the facility of two incomes, two people to split housework and childcare duties are an enormous boon. Statistically, two parent married families who have children after high school are almost never below the poverty line.
I offer that as descriptive and not proscriptive - I don’t know the solution. But I know two parents in a stable household make it much easier.
It’s as basic as Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Food, shelter and Safety are foundational. Everything else comes with they. The poorest neighborhoods in the US are like war zones. Once they have safety and middle class jobs, things like 2 parent households will flourish.
> The problem is the poor areas in the US are exceedingly violent and basically succumb to victimization to explain why they can’t get out of poverty. If they can’t have safety and the culture is to just blame others and not try to better themselves, this is a perfect way to create generational poverty.
I think its more that if you want a straight-forward means to earn proper money without a degree then organised crime has positions for you. That's not a case of a "bad culture", its a case of opportunity.
> Instead of $100B to Ukraine we need to...
everyone knows that one of the two political parties attacks _every_ piece of public spending, not because they wish to re-invest it elsewhere but because they would like to justify tax cuts a few years down the line. So it surprises me every time this line gets trotted out when they're in opposition. Are we not learning?
Furthermore; Funding Ukraine is a very cheap means of gaining geo-political outcomes that fit the aims of NATO. Every citizen of a democratic nation should be celebrating the success of the Ukraine armed forces as opposed to trying to defund them.
I think its more that if you want a straight-forward means to earn proper money without a degree then organised crime has positions for you. That's not a case of a "bad culture", its a case of opportunity.
> Instead of $100B to Ukraine we need to...
everyone knows that one of the two political parties attacks _every_ piece of public spending, not because they wish to re-invest it elsewhere but because they would like to justify tax cuts a few years down the line. So it surprises me every time this line gets trotted out when they're in opposition. Are we not learning?
Furthermore; Funding Ukraine is a very cheap means of gaining geo-political outcomes that fit the aims of NATO. Every citizen of a democratic nation should be celebrating the success of the Ukraine armed forces as opposed to trying to defund them.
> My parents were dirt poor because their country was devastated by war, but they were able to concentrate on education and were middle class, and now me and my siblings are 1%ers.
You just described me and millions like me in India. Education continues to be the most reliable path for the poor to escape the poverty trap.
You just described me and millions like me in India. Education continues to be the most reliable path for the poor to escape the poverty trap.
I have to disagree here. Education is often more a result of increase in wealth then the cause.
How do you invest in JOBS? That's not a thing that exists.
Also, cities are not save because of police. That's a misunderstandings of how city work and a misunderstanding how safety works.
Simply reducing violence is hard, or impossible, more police isn't the answer. What are the underlying reasons for the these issues in the first place.
> Within a generation it will change the entire city
Schools and policy are not changing a city. What changes a city for the better is public transport, good infrastructure for utilities, good tax and land use policies, effective minimum public services.
Schools and policing are part of that, but only a part.
How do you invest in JOBS? That's not a thing that exists.
Also, cities are not save because of police. That's a misunderstandings of how city work and a misunderstanding how safety works.
Simply reducing violence is hard, or impossible, more police isn't the answer. What are the underlying reasons for the these issues in the first place.
> Within a generation it will change the entire city
Schools and policy are not changing a city. What changes a city for the better is public transport, good infrastructure for utilities, good tax and land use policies, effective minimum public services.
Schools and policing are part of that, but only a part.
The police in Oakland are not always a force for good. They are under federal supervision essentially for being too corrupt. it's not clear that hiring more of them will help.
Why would we want DoD budget going to chicago or Baltimore?
Because we spend too much on the military industrial complex and not on our own communities. We are rotting from the inside because we create generational poverty in these communities and just leave them to themselves. Occasionally when a cop kills someone there, we will remember them for a few days and then forget them in a couple of weeks.
Over 3000 people were shot in Chicago this year so far. And that’s down 20%. Did you even hear anything about that? We let these poverty-stricken neighborhoods live in violence and don’t do a goddamn thing about it. Meanwhile we feed the military industrial complex to fight wars on the other side of the world. That’s bullshit.
Over 3000 people were shot in Chicago this year so far. And that’s down 20%. Did you even hear anything about that? We let these poverty-stricken neighborhoods live in violence and don’t do a goddamn thing about it. Meanwhile we feed the military industrial complex to fight wars on the other side of the world. That’s bullshit.
But chicago and Baltimore’s poor violent neighborhoods are not a federal problem. That’s a chicago and Baltimore problem. I don’t want any of my tax dollars that go to DoD going to either of those cities. I’m sure you can find ways to donate to various social programs and outreach for those places if you looked. I want to support Ukraine with our defense budget not waste it on Baltimore
I'm pretty sure the people of Oakland would welcome you to keep these ideas confined to whatever place you currently inhabit. Why don't you take your weird crusade to a city that could actually use it, like Memphis, Tennessee?
Want to make South Side Chicago prosperous? Make it an attractive place for productive people to set up shop. Cutting taxes and regulation is how that works.
What person is going to invest in a shrinking city with poverty and tremendous violence just to pay a little less tax?
Anyone who is willing to take on risk for a large payback.
After all, those sort of people settled in America and made it the most prosperous country in the world.
After all, those sort of people settled in America and made it the most prosperous country in the world.
In the scale of $20t debt and $3t deficits, and $700b tax cuts - $100b is not an either or situation.
This is a surprisingly tone-deaf comment as someone from the same background, and its not even internally consistent.
On one hand you seem to understand that education helped our parents:
> but they were able to concentrate on education and were middle class
On the other you seem to think that menial labor will somehow fix these places, you think we just haven't tried more police (for every sound bite you hear about defunding the police, go look at the YoY expenditure that city actually has)
You also flip-flop on being able to understand that safety is a pretty big part of being able to focus on education for some reason.
-
I mean can tell you right now, our parents are not representative of their surroundings.
Yes there are a lot of stories like theirs, but your home country is anything like mine, the stories are almost bi-modal: either a given person from "home" is the hardest working person you've ever met and pulled themselves up by the thread of their bootstraps (tends to be our direct family or family friends so we hear about this more)... or they're borderline dysfunctional, often struggle with addiction as a form of escapism, and probably not trying to better themselves just like the people you're thumbing your nose at (tends to be something you see a lot more if you go home yourself).
Maybe instead of taking the good fortune that we've had with what our parents sacrifices and struggles started us off with and stomping on it with self-aggrandizing diatribes where you proclaim the simple fixes that would right everything for these "poor self-pitying victims"... maybe just take away the lesson that things can improve for them.
Focus on the more positive aspects of that exposure, rather than confusing exposure with experience. Because if you're anything like me, we sure as hell don't have any experience near what these people struggle with, both in the US and in our home countries.
On one hand you seem to understand that education helped our parents:
> but they were able to concentrate on education and were middle class
On the other you seem to think that menial labor will somehow fix these places, you think we just haven't tried more police (for every sound bite you hear about defunding the police, go look at the YoY expenditure that city actually has)
You also flip-flop on being able to understand that safety is a pretty big part of being able to focus on education for some reason.
-
I mean can tell you right now, our parents are not representative of their surroundings.
Yes there are a lot of stories like theirs, but your home country is anything like mine, the stories are almost bi-modal: either a given person from "home" is the hardest working person you've ever met and pulled themselves up by the thread of their bootstraps (tends to be our direct family or family friends so we hear about this more)... or they're borderline dysfunctional, often struggle with addiction as a form of escapism, and probably not trying to better themselves just like the people you're thumbing your nose at (tends to be something you see a lot more if you go home yourself).
Maybe instead of taking the good fortune that we've had with what our parents sacrifices and struggles started us off with and stomping on it with self-aggrandizing diatribes where you proclaim the simple fixes that would right everything for these "poor self-pitying victims"... maybe just take away the lesson that things can improve for them.
Focus on the more positive aspects of that exposure, rather than confusing exposure with experience. Because if you're anything like me, we sure as hell don't have any experience near what these people struggle with, both in the US and in our home countries.
One thing the post didn’t touch on with regards to health care - it’s tied to employment.
On one hand, we have tech companies covering all out of pocket expenses, and on the other, we have service industry people who can’t even get health care from their employer.
The same can be said for childcare, free meals at work, etc.
On one hand, we have tech companies covering all out of pocket expenses, and on the other, we have service industry people who can’t even get health care from their employer.
The same can be said for childcare, free meals at work, etc.
What is better, one banana today or 2 bananas tomorrow?
If you do the math for these intertemporal choices with different combinations of time and rewards, the answer is hyperbolic discounting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_discounting
Behavioral economics is part of the knowledge that predatory people use to exploit the poor.
If you do the math for these intertemporal choices with different combinations of time and rewards, the answer is hyperbolic discounting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_discounting
Behavioral economics is part of the knowledge that predatory people use to exploit the poor.
Ideally you'd want want one banana today and one tomorrow, especially if all you can afford is one banana per day.
Coming out of a spell of intermittent contract work, I found a job a 30-45 minute commute away. I rented a car from a shop that offered older cars for decent rates for the first few months before taking a loan for a new car.
Because I was enrolled in a car sharing service for a few years before, I had an insurance record and got a good rate.
If you don't have a daily commute, car sharing services can be a very good deal.
Because I was enrolled in a car sharing service for a few years before, I had an insurance record and got a good rate.
If you don't have a daily commute, car sharing services can be a very good deal.
> If you can qualify for a mortgage, you have a big leg up on people who rent.
This is not always true. Often, the price of real estate outpaces rent. I.e. renting is cheaper than buying.
As a renter, you're not paying property tax, insurance, repairs, maintenance, and maybe utilities.
As a renter, you have no risk. Remember 2008 when housing prices tanked?
Making money off your house often depends on how good a negotiator you are.
Most people neglect to consider transaction costs. For example, you have to pay your real estate agent 6% of the sale price of the house. The house also may sit vacant for many months waiting for a deal, this is all dead weight cost.
The first few years of your mortgage, you aren't gaining much of any equity. It's nearly all interest payments.
A renter can walk away any time. This is why renting is better if you're going to stay less than 5 years.
This is not always true. Often, the price of real estate outpaces rent. I.e. renting is cheaper than buying.
As a renter, you're not paying property tax, insurance, repairs, maintenance, and maybe utilities.
As a renter, you have no risk. Remember 2008 when housing prices tanked?
Making money off your house often depends on how good a negotiator you are.
Most people neglect to consider transaction costs. For example, you have to pay your real estate agent 6% of the sale price of the house. The house also may sit vacant for many months waiting for a deal, this is all dead weight cost.
The first few years of your mortgage, you aren't gaining much of any equity. It's nearly all interest payments.
A renter can walk away any time. This is why renting is better if you're going to stay less than 5 years.
> As a renter, you have no risk. Remember 2008 when housing prices tanked?
As a renter, you have the risk of your rent shooting up year after year as has happened these past few years basically globally.
Housing prices tanking are mostly an issue if you’re planning to sell your house, or you’re one of those people who buy with the intention of reselling. If you bought something in your affordable range and prices drop in half afterwards, well, that sucks, but you’re paying what you expected to pay and missing out on a discount you didn’t anticipate.
As a renter, you have the risk of your rent shooting up year after year as has happened these past few years basically globally.
Housing prices tanking are mostly an issue if you’re planning to sell your house, or you’re one of those people who buy with the intention of reselling. If you bought something in your affordable range and prices drop in half afterwards, well, that sucks, but you’re paying what you expected to pay and missing out on a discount you didn’t anticipate.
> This is not always true. Often, the price of real estate outpaces rent. I.e. renting is cheaper than buying.
> As a renter, you're not paying property tax, insurance, repairs, maintenance, and maybe utilities.
You are though, are you not? Ie the only thing that changes between renting and owning is who is maybe economies of scale. For sake of discussion, lets say you rent from someone who owns a spare house. You are paying everything you just mentioned, on average, as the renter. If you don't, then the owner is losing money - and that's not likely.
Now with a larger business owning your home/apartment/etc, i imagine there is room for economies of scale. They don't have to pay to have a plumber come out, they might already have one on staff or retainer. etc. Perhaps they get better deals on land taxes and whatnot too?
But lets not forget - you're paying for everything your landlord is, plus profit. Always. The only way it works out cheaper for you is if they are more efficient at it.
You are though, are you not? Ie the only thing that changes between renting and owning is who is maybe economies of scale. For sake of discussion, lets say you rent from someone who owns a spare house. You are paying everything you just mentioned, on average, as the renter. If you don't, then the owner is losing money - and that's not likely.
Now with a larger business owning your home/apartment/etc, i imagine there is room for economies of scale. They don't have to pay to have a plumber come out, they might already have one on staff or retainer. etc. Perhaps they get better deals on land taxes and whatnot too?
But lets not forget - you're paying for everything your landlord is, plus profit. Always. The only way it works out cheaper for you is if they are more efficient at it.
> But let's not forget - you're paying for everything your landlord is, plus profit. Always.
Definitely not always. Loss is common in business.
Doubly so here when asset values are appreciating. If the landlord thinks they're making bank simply holding property, any rental income on top that helps minimize costs is just gravy. There isn't tremendous pressure for costs to be fully recouped.
In reality, you're paying the least amount you can that still beats the alternatives. That doesn't guarantee profitability for the landlord. The landlord recognizing lack of profits and selling the property is an alternative, but may not even be a tenable one in some circumstances (e.g. a market downturn that leaves potential buyers weary) without taking even greater losses.
Definitely not always. Loss is common in business.
Doubly so here when asset values are appreciating. If the landlord thinks they're making bank simply holding property, any rental income on top that helps minimize costs is just gravy. There isn't tremendous pressure for costs to be fully recouped.
In reality, you're paying the least amount you can that still beats the alternatives. That doesn't guarantee profitability for the landlord. The landlord recognizing lack of profits and selling the property is an alternative, but may not even be a tenable one in some circumstances (e.g. a market downturn that leaves potential buyers weary) without taking even greater losses.
> Doubly so here when asset values are appreciating. If the landlord thinks they're making bank simply holding property, any rental income on top that helps minimize costs is just gravy. There isn't tremendous pressure for costs to be fully recouped.
Maybe with certain small owner groups, but I can guarantee you that any community with a dedicated management company (separate from the ownership group) has a goal of making profit on top of however much their property value is appreciating. Not every owner plans to sell the property within a few years of buying it. This applies to all of your apartment communities regardless of age (well, minus lease-ups in their first year).
Also, most properties run on a bog-standard business checking account for their income and expenses; the owner isn't just dumping money in it every month to support operating losses because "the property is appreciating anyways!". If the manager and management group isn't making money to sustain operations, you'll have both an angry owner and angry corporate management that can't pay themselves for their management fees.
Maybe with certain small owner groups, but I can guarantee you that any community with a dedicated management company (separate from the ownership group) has a goal of making profit on top of however much their property value is appreciating. Not every owner plans to sell the property within a few years of buying it. This applies to all of your apartment communities regardless of age (well, minus lease-ups in their first year).
Also, most properties run on a bog-standard business checking account for their income and expenses; the owner isn't just dumping money in it every month to support operating losses because "the property is appreciating anyways!". If the manager and management group isn't making money to sustain operations, you'll have both an angry owner and angry corporate management that can't pay themselves for their management fees.
I have observed that many small landlords are speculating on a longer term payoff of the property greatly increasing in value, are not present but planning on moving back in at some point, or own outright and have out of date ideas about market rent. All of these lead to situations where they may take losses of varying sizes in the near to medium term. Combine one of these landlords with someone who is not planning on sticking around long term and you've got a match made in heaven.
> Definitely not always. Loss is common in business.
Maybe randomly here and there, but you will be homeless if your landlord continually loses money. I said it earlier in my comment, "on average".
If your landlord on average is losing money, you will be homeless soon enough, or someone else will buy it and increase your rent or find a way to be more efficient than the previous landlord.
Maybe randomly here and there, but you will be homeless if your landlord continually loses money. I said it earlier in my comment, "on average".
If your landlord on average is losing money, you will be homeless soon enough, or someone else will buy it and increase your rent or find a way to be more efficient than the previous landlord.
> but you will be homeless if your landlord continually loses money.
Or you will find yourself continually cycling through landlords as each one eventually gives up and sells to the next sucker. Assuming the next sucker comes along. The landlord might be stuck with the property. Real estate has been an easy sell of late, but that hasn’t been true historically.
> and increase your rent
To which you can say, "no thanks". Sure, they can kick you out[1], but with no rental income their losses will be even higher. What landlord worried about profitability wants to reduce profitability even further? The landlord is beholden to what the renter is willing to pay. The renter couldn't care less about the expenses involved in running a rental property. That doesn't factor into how much they are willing to pay at all.
[1] If your jurisdiction has liberal enough laws. Where I live it is essentially impossible to evict tenants. Even in egregious cases, like the tenant who stopped paying rent, there is currently a year+ backlog in the government signing off on the eviction.
Or you will find yourself continually cycling through landlords as each one eventually gives up and sells to the next sucker. Assuming the next sucker comes along. The landlord might be stuck with the property. Real estate has been an easy sell of late, but that hasn’t been true historically.
> and increase your rent
To which you can say, "no thanks". Sure, they can kick you out[1], but with no rental income their losses will be even higher. What landlord worried about profitability wants to reduce profitability even further? The landlord is beholden to what the renter is willing to pay. The renter couldn't care less about the expenses involved in running a rental property. That doesn't factor into how much they are willing to pay at all.
[1] If your jurisdiction has liberal enough laws. Where I live it is essentially impossible to evict tenants. Even in egregious cases, like the tenant who stopped paying rent, there is currently a year+ backlog in the government signing off on the eviction.
I dunno, these seem like exceptions that prove the rule to me. Seems a time consuming game to seek out landlords who are losing money so that i can save money in the long run. Especially if i don't want to live in a place that behaves like it is also losing money. Ie where repairs and basic needs aren't met because the landlord is upside down and is seeking to sell asap.
Anything is possible, but it seems quite improbable to a, what appears to be, very profitable venture for many corporations. A probable explanation to so many potentially owned homes being offered as rentals, too.
For the significant majority of tenants i cannot imagine they're "winning" over their landlord.
Anything is possible, but it seems quite improbable to a, what appears to be, very profitable venture for many corporations. A probable explanation to so many potentially owned homes being offered as rentals, too.
For the significant majority of tenants i cannot imagine they're "winning" over their landlord.
> what appears to be, very profitable venture for many corporations.
It no doubt can be quite profitable where the tenants are willing to pay more than your costs. There are unquestionably markets where that is the case. I'm not sure it holds universally, though. Not everyone is a landlord in San Francisco renting out to software developers with the capability to pay almost anything to be there and a competitiveness to be willing to do so.
Do you really think the landlord in a dwindling town is profitable? As the town dwindles costs rise, and at the same time what incentive is there for the renters to pay more? It is not like there is a lineup behind them champing at the bit to rent the place when they leave.
It no doubt can be quite profitable where the tenants are willing to pay more than your costs. There are unquestionably markets where that is the case. I'm not sure it holds universally, though. Not everyone is a landlord in San Francisco renting out to software developers with the capability to pay almost anything to be there and a competitiveness to be willing to do so.
Do you really think the landlord in a dwindling town is profitable? As the town dwindles costs rise, and at the same time what incentive is there for the renters to pay more? It is not like there is a lineup behind them champing at the bit to rent the place when they leave.
> Do you really think the landlord in a dwindling town is profitable? As the town dwindles costs rise, and at the same time what incentive is there for the renters to pay more? It is not like there is a lineup behind them champing at the bit to rent the place when they leave.
Yes, anywhere that renting continues to exist. If it wasn't profitable on average it would be sold asap. Again, there's always the chance you're buying from a chain of incompetent landlords who all can't do math and continually fail to turn a profit, i just don't seem that as the likely long term outcome. Let alone trying to rely on you making out better than your landlord.
On average a simple and easy rule of thumb is that your landlord is paying what you'd pay, plus profit. Economies of scale/politics (lower taxes/etc) are the only time i see where on average both parties can profit.
Oh and of course, as someone else pointed out, if you're in an amazingly rent controlled place for a variety of reasons you're probably making out like a bandit. My coworker's mother lived in a place in Seattle that, for some reason, was paying like $600/m (half my rent at the time!) in downtown Seattle. Comparable apartments were going for $1,800+ iirc. A bit of golden handcuffs, because she couldn't afford to move anywhere given how cheap the rent was, hah.
Yes, anywhere that renting continues to exist. If it wasn't profitable on average it would be sold asap. Again, there's always the chance you're buying from a chain of incompetent landlords who all can't do math and continually fail to turn a profit, i just don't seem that as the likely long term outcome. Let alone trying to rely on you making out better than your landlord.
On average a simple and easy rule of thumb is that your landlord is paying what you'd pay, plus profit. Economies of scale/politics (lower taxes/etc) are the only time i see where on average both parties can profit.
Oh and of course, as someone else pointed out, if you're in an amazingly rent controlled place for a variety of reasons you're probably making out like a bandit. My coworker's mother lived in a place in Seattle that, for some reason, was paying like $600/m (half my rent at the time!) in downtown Seattle. Comparable apartments were going for $1,800+ iirc. A bit of golden handcuffs, because she couldn't afford to move anywhere given how cheap the rent was, hah.
> If it wasn't profitable on average it would be sold asap.
To who? If it can't be profitable, why would anyone else want to buy it? Maybe you'll get lucky and find another sucker, but then you're just pushing the same problem onto the next guy.
Outside of that, about all you can do is disappear as if you never existed and let the fate of the property land where it may. But as humans tend to be strongly loss averse, more likely you'll keep plugging along in hopes that one day things will turn around.
To who? If it can't be profitable, why would anyone else want to buy it? Maybe you'll get lucky and find another sucker, but then you're just pushing the same problem onto the next guy.
Outside of that, about all you can do is disappear as if you never existed and let the fate of the property land where it may. But as humans tend to be strongly loss averse, more likely you'll keep plugging along in hopes that one day things will turn around.
> To who? If it can't be profitable, why would anyone else want to buy it? Maybe you'll get lucky and find another sucker, but then you're just pushing the same problem onto the next guy.
Someone will almost assuredly buy it at a low enough rate. It's either that or actively lose money each month.
Tbh i'm still confused by your argument. Are you saying that you believe people will, month after month, take a loss for years so that someone can live more cheaply in a house than it would take that same person to own the home themselves?
Economies of scale is the only way this plays out in the long term in any stable way. No?
Someone will almost assuredly buy it at a low enough rate. It's either that or actively lose money each month.
Tbh i'm still confused by your argument. Are you saying that you believe people will, month after month, take a loss for years so that someone can live more cheaply in a house than it would take that same person to own the home themselves?
Economies of scale is the only way this plays out in the long term in any stable way. No?
> Someone will almost assuredly buy it at a low enough rate.
Let's examine that. If you were selling it to yourself you would charge yourself $0. We have established, for the sake of argument, that you can't turn a profit renting out the place. Which means that even $0 is too high. Are you suggesting that the rate is negative? i.e. You will pay someone to take it off your hands? I think at that point you may as well just disappear into the night and never come back.
I mean, maybe you're thinking that this hypothetical person is trying to heat the place with $100 bills and the next guy to come along can cut costs dramatically by switching to natural gas, but I think for the purposes of discussion we can assume that the costs are already reasonably minimized. Are there small gains to be made with economies of scale? Sure, but I don't know if they are significant enough here.
> Are you saying that you believe people will, month after month, take a loss for years so that someone can live more cheaply in a house
I'm saying losses in business are the norm. It's not done out of the goodness of one's heart, it's just the nature of business being largely unpredictable and hard. I expect if you are discerning in your choices you can also continually eat at restaurants that see the restauranteur pay out of their own pocket for you to eat there. Even most software never turns a profit.
Let's examine that. If you were selling it to yourself you would charge yourself $0. We have established, for the sake of argument, that you can't turn a profit renting out the place. Which means that even $0 is too high. Are you suggesting that the rate is negative? i.e. You will pay someone to take it off your hands? I think at that point you may as well just disappear into the night and never come back.
I mean, maybe you're thinking that this hypothetical person is trying to heat the place with $100 bills and the next guy to come along can cut costs dramatically by switching to natural gas, but I think for the purposes of discussion we can assume that the costs are already reasonably minimized. Are there small gains to be made with economies of scale? Sure, but I don't know if they are significant enough here.
> Are you saying that you believe people will, month after month, take a loss for years so that someone can live more cheaply in a house
I'm saying losses in business are the norm. It's not done out of the goodness of one's heart, it's just the nature of business being largely unpredictable and hard. I expect if you are discerning in your choices you can also continually eat at restaurants that see the restauranteur pay out of their own pocket for you to eat there. Even most software never turns a profit.
> Do you really think the landlord in a dwindling town is profitable? As the town dwindles costs rise, and at the same time what incentive is there for the renters to pay more? It is not like there is a lineup behind them champing at the bit to rent the place when they leave.
Oh and one additional thought. To think of it differently, do you really think a landlord in a dwindling town would lose money month after month, year after year? Any sane landlord will be looking to cut the losses asap.
Oh and one additional thought. To think of it differently, do you really think a landlord in a dwindling town would lose money month after month, year after year? Any sane landlord will be looking to cut the losses asap.
> Do you really think the landlord in a dwindling town is profitable?
Yes, and so do the landlords.
If they didn’t, instead of renting the property out, they'd sell it for the price of one month's rent—someone willing to rent at that price would be even more willing to buy, and the landlord would then be free of the future losses they expect to suffer.
Yes, and so do the landlords.
If they didn’t, instead of renting the property out, they'd sell it for the price of one month's rent—someone willing to rent at that price would be even more willing to buy, and the landlord would then be free of the future losses they expect to suffer.
Given the scenario, why would someone pay even a month's rent to take on a larger monthly expense going forward?
More concretely, let's say it costs $1,000 per month to the landlord and the tenant pays $500 per month. The landlord is losing $500 a month and wants to unload the place, so he offers the property to you, the tenant, for $500. But now you have to assume the $1,000 per month cost. What's in it for you to double your expenses?
That is unless the landlord continues to carry the $500 per month shortfall even after the sale. That would be a good deal for the tenant, but why would the landlord sell under that scenario? If you're paying $500 per month out of pocket either way, you may as well ride it out and hope things improve someday.
More concretely, let's say it costs $1,000 per month to the landlord and the tenant pays $500 per month. The landlord is losing $500 a month and wants to unload the place, so he offers the property to you, the tenant, for $500. But now you have to assume the $1,000 per month cost. What's in it for you to double your expenses?
That is unless the landlord continues to carry the $500 per month shortfall even after the sale. That would be a good deal for the tenant, but why would the landlord sell under that scenario? If you're paying $500 per month out of pocket either way, you may as well ride it out and hope things improve someday.
There is a small seeming exception in regions where housing prices are rising rapidly: if the owner is willing to forgo increasing rent at the rate of housing price increases (which is pretty common among smalltime landlords), then renting can appear to be cheaper than the present-day mortgage for an equivalent property. Of course, in that market as a renter you lose out on appreciation of the house, so renting is only better if you can get bottom-market rates near the top of the market.
Or if you're not sticking around long term.
> The only way it works out cheaper for you is if they are more efficient at it.
One easy way would be the difference in credit scores leading to lower payments for the landlord.
One easy way would be the difference in credit scores leading to lower payments for the landlord.
There is a widening gap between "perfect credit score" and "able to afford a down payment on a mortgage".
> Always.
Not always. Around here, there were several years where house prices rose faster than rents. The owners were renting them out for less than the mortgage.
Not always. Around here, there were several years where house prices rose faster than rents. The owners were renting them out for less than the mortgage.
That was pretty standard leading up to the Great Recession. It was the new economy, you see, and fundamentals like valuing property based on rental market values was the old economy because property values never go down.
My sister was renting out her house for less than the mortgage for a few years waiting for the price to rise enough to not lose money selling it and she bought well before the real estate boom.
My sister was renting out her house for less than the mortgage for a few years waiting for the price to rise enough to not lose money selling it and she bought well before the real estate boom.
> the old economy because property values never go down
that conventional wisdom never existed
that conventional wisdom never existed
The “experts” were literally telling people that on a regular basis. The “fundamentals changed” so it was ok to sell a person making 35k a half a million house because they could always sell it (at a profit) before the interest rates increased on the loan. Or it was ok to use your house as an atm machine by pulling all the equity out to buy whatever you wanted.
Can’t make this stuff up…
Can’t make this stuff up…
There are further aspects that speaks against home ownership:
a) The money one puts into a house is an investment whose future value depends on the increase or decrease in the value of the property. If a person puts most of her or his money into this investment, this means per se a high risk, because the person's investments are not well-diversified.
b) People run the risk of overspending early in their life, because many of them want to build or buy a house for life, which means building something larger than they would rent at that age, thus generally spending more money on housing (via interest rates).
c) When people have no heirs or their heirs are already well provided for, it makes little sense to own a more or less mortgage-free house when they die. The money could have been spent during their lifetime.
These aspects speak, of course, not absolutely against home ownership. Point (a) cannot easily be avoided, when the property's value is high compared to one's savings and income. But it also means a commitment to saving, which can be a good thing. Point (b) can be mitigated by starting with a small property, selling it later and then buying or building a larger property. Point (c) can be mitigated by a mortgage on the house, if this is possible, or by another financial instrument where the house is (partially) sold but one retains a right to live there until death. -- All in all, however, the danger of overspending is real.
a) The money one puts into a house is an investment whose future value depends on the increase or decrease in the value of the property. If a person puts most of her or his money into this investment, this means per se a high risk, because the person's investments are not well-diversified.
b) People run the risk of overspending early in their life, because many of them want to build or buy a house for life, which means building something larger than they would rent at that age, thus generally spending more money on housing (via interest rates).
c) When people have no heirs or their heirs are already well provided for, it makes little sense to own a more or less mortgage-free house when they die. The money could have been spent during their lifetime.
These aspects speak, of course, not absolutely against home ownership. Point (a) cannot easily be avoided, when the property's value is high compared to one's savings and income. But it also means a commitment to saving, which can be a good thing. Point (b) can be mitigated by starting with a small property, selling it later and then buying or building a larger property. Point (c) can be mitigated by a mortgage on the house, if this is possible, or by another financial instrument where the house is (partially) sold but one retains a right to live there until death. -- All in all, however, the danger of overspending is real.
>Point (c) can be mitigated by a mortgage on the house, if this is possible, or by another financial instrument where the house is (partially) sold but one retains a right to live there until death.
In Italy (but probably in many EU countries) there is a way to sell what is called "bare property" (in Italian "nuda proprietà"), while keeping use of the house (in Italian "usufrutto").
The cost of a "nuda proprietà" is of course much lower than the full one, and basically the buyer is betting on the time the seller will still live, whilst the seller is using the sale income to live those remaining years.
It is not particularly common, sometimes the buyer (of course not really poor people) use this form to buy a house for their sons as a form of investment for when they grow up.
In Italy (but probably in many EU countries) there is a way to sell what is called "bare property" (in Italian "nuda proprietà"), while keeping use of the house (in Italian "usufrutto").
The cost of a "nuda proprietà" is of course much lower than the full one, and basically the buyer is betting on the time the seller will still live, whilst the seller is using the sale income to live those remaining years.
It is not particularly common, sometimes the buyer (of course not really poor people) use this form to buy a house for their sons as a form of investment for when they grow up.
> This is why renting is better if you're going to stay less than 5 years.
Sometimes the opposite if you have rent control.
Mine can only pass on property tax increases and capital improvements. As monthly strata fees, interest and repairs go up, they can’t pass any on to me.
At this rate, I’ll never move out!
Sometimes the opposite if you have rent control.
Mine can only pass on property tax increases and capital improvements. As monthly strata fees, interest and repairs go up, they can’t pass any on to me.
At this rate, I’ll never move out!
I'm in the same boat as you. I live in Southern Ontario (Canada) in a small town (10-14 thousand people). I have a 1000sq/ft apartment, 2 bedrooms, central air/heating . Moved in 15 years ago, rent was $726/month (Canadian dollars obviously). It's rent controlled. 15 years later, I'm now paying $868/month. Just 15 units/apartments here, VERY quiet building. On top of rent, I pay my own hydro, which is about $100/month, water supply is included in rent.
I write software for a living, and over the last 15 years I've saved (invested) enough money to buy any house in town for cash. But I don't see the need, I'm single, no kids, and I work from home (second bedroom is my office). I'm 56 now, and am on track to retire in 7-8 years, with low 7 figures saved. The more I save, the more cheap/stingy I become with my money. While I could easily buy a new vehicle for cash, I prefer to keep my (rusted in places) 2010 F-150, I keep it maintained mechanically, and it is still purring along.... except for the rusted rocker panels that is. :)
There is VERY rarely any units in my building for rent, all 15 units/apartments are rented by long-term tenants. The only way the landlord/owner can raise the rent is when a tenant moves out. About 5 years ago, the couple across the hall moved out, landlord renovated their apartment, and rented it for $1,800/month (same apartment as mine, just a mirror image).
I don't know anything about the US of A, if there is rent control there or not, but it's almost universal in Canada for "purpose built" commercial rental buildings. Private rental units, like privately owned condos and houses, they can raise the rent as much as they want AFAIK.
I write software for a living, and over the last 15 years I've saved (invested) enough money to buy any house in town for cash. But I don't see the need, I'm single, no kids, and I work from home (second bedroom is my office). I'm 56 now, and am on track to retire in 7-8 years, with low 7 figures saved. The more I save, the more cheap/stingy I become with my money. While I could easily buy a new vehicle for cash, I prefer to keep my (rusted in places) 2010 F-150, I keep it maintained mechanically, and it is still purring along.... except for the rusted rocker panels that is. :)
There is VERY rarely any units in my building for rent, all 15 units/apartments are rented by long-term tenants. The only way the landlord/owner can raise the rent is when a tenant moves out. About 5 years ago, the couple across the hall moved out, landlord renovated their apartment, and rented it for $1,800/month (same apartment as mine, just a mirror image).
I don't know anything about the US of A, if there is rent control there or not, but it's almost universal in Canada for "purpose built" commercial rental buildings. Private rental units, like privately owned condos and houses, they can raise the rent as much as they want AFAIK.
And this is why rent control is bad for society - very beneficial for those who have it, prevents anyone else from finding cheap land nearby (because the remaining non-controlled housing is in higher demand :/)
It’s all over the place in US, and even Canada.
Private condos/houses are mostly still rent controlled in Ontario too.
Private condos/houses are mostly still rent controlled in Ontario too.
That's why you'll end up in a slum where repairs are minimal. (at least if you're in a large metropolitan)
A poor renter often can not walk away any time as easily as a home owner.
First and Last months rent is often a deposit, and when you don't have credit is a minimum, 30, 60, even 90 days notice (and the naive or people who can't take a phone call, research laws, or just don't have time) will sometimes pay more.
In effect, poor, don't have credit, then lost deposits + new deposits could be worth more than a down payment.
Oh, and those with credit might have gotten down payment assistance (with forgiving), or a low% downpayment - and their worst loss is that downpayment and 7 years of bad credit; plus it takes a lot longer to evict a delinquent mortgage than a delinquent renter.
First and Last months rent is often a deposit, and when you don't have credit is a minimum, 30, 60, even 90 days notice (and the naive or people who can't take a phone call, research laws, or just don't have time) will sometimes pay more.
In effect, poor, don't have credit, then lost deposits + new deposits could be worth more than a down payment.
Oh, and those with credit might have gotten down payment assistance (with forgiving), or a low% downpayment - and their worst loss is that downpayment and 7 years of bad credit; plus it takes a lot longer to evict a delinquent mortgage than a delinquent renter.
> A poor renter often can not walk away any time as easily as a home owner.
Consider how much it costs to have your house sit empty for a year looking for a buyer. There's nothing "easy" about it.
Consider how much it costs to have your house sit empty for a year looking for a buyer. There's nothing "easy" about it.
I'm not sure of any time I've heard of a house sitting empty for a year. Even in 2009. Until a few months ago, you had houses selling in hours/days, and even now it seems like they still move quickly.
What can I say. I have. The market goes up and down, and in down markets houses can sit for a long time. The last house I had was in a development with several homes in it for sale for over a year.
> The first few years of your mortgage, you aren't gaining much of any equity. It's nearly all interest payments.
It might not have to be that way.
Where I live we have the linear mortgage. Every month I pay a constant amount back on the principal, and a variable amount of interest on the remaining principal. At the end of the mortgage (30 years here) it is all paid off. With this type of mortgage we pay the lowest overall amount of interest.
Because the monthly payment goes down each month, the first payment is the highest. As a result some people choose to get a different type of mortgage instead, even though the linear type costs the least in the end.
It might not have to be that way.
Where I live we have the linear mortgage. Every month I pay a constant amount back on the principal, and a variable amount of interest on the remaining principal. At the end of the mortgage (30 years here) it is all paid off. With this type of mortgage we pay the lowest overall amount of interest.
Because the monthly payment goes down each month, the first payment is the highest. As a result some people choose to get a different type of mortgage instead, even though the linear type costs the least in the end.
> Making money off your house often depends on how good a negotiator you are.
Good luck negotiating with the bank's appraiser. During the 2021 housing craze you might've been able to get 5-digits over closing, but from what I've heard, it was still rare to have a buyer with another $20k to throw your way. Nowadays, you're completely at the mercy of the market and how much the homes around yours are being sold for, relative to your home's square footage and whatnot.
Good luck negotiating with the bank's appraiser. During the 2021 housing craze you might've been able to get 5-digits over closing, but from what I've heard, it was still rare to have a buyer with another $20k to throw your way. Nowadays, you're completely at the mercy of the market and how much the homes around yours are being sold for, relative to your home's square footage and whatnot.
You're not negotiating with the appraiser. You're negotiating with the buyer or seller.
> you're completely at the mercy of the market
I hear all the time people saying they cannot negotiate. They can. You can. I can. There are many books on it if you need an introduction to it.
> you're completely at the mercy of the market
I hear all the time people saying they cannot negotiate. They can. You can. I can. There are many books on it if you need an introduction to it.
Have you ever bought or sold a home? Unless the buyer is buying in cash, or at least has large cash reserves to give to you at closing, they can only afford up to whatever the bank approves them for, and lenders don't hand out $400k loans for properties valued at $350k just because "the seller made a hard bargain and the buyer agreed". If they did, they'd be upside down the second after closing because a foreclosure means the lender/bank can only sell the house for $350k less than what the buyer owes (and they don't tend to stake their foreclosure sales on whether or not they find another oblivious buyer willing to pay way over market for a house that they could go across the street and get for much cheaper).
> Have you ever bought or sold a home?
Yes, I have. Several times. You can always negotiate. You're leaving money on the table if you don't invest some time learning how to do it.
Yes, I have. Several times. You can always negotiate. You're leaving money on the table if you don't invest some time learning how to do it.
Even if you do that, do you assume they have the extra money to pay you in savings? Because the lender for sure isn't increasing their liability for a house they'd lose money on if the buyer skips the first month. Also, this is illegal if you already have a PSA, so I assume you're negotiating before any sale goes pending, in which you'd probably be better off with a regular two-week bidding window and bidding war anyways.
I've negotiated plenty of deals I was told were non-negotiable.
Also, nobody bragging about their mortgage mentions their down payment. I’d never be able to afford 20% down anywhere on the west coast.
Most of the US is not the west coast, and an FHA mortgage only requires 3-5% down and a credit score of someone with a pulse.
That mortgage principal and interest is fixed for the life of the loan. Rent always goes up. Real estate builds wealth because it’s one of the most accessible ways to acquire an asset that historically beats inflation with easily accessible leverage. You can even rent it out after only a year of occupancy (although one can only have one FHA mortgage outstanding at a time).
There is always risk with any asset, but you have to live somewhere; might as well borrow to capture the upside if you’re going to stick around for a bit. If you’re renting, hopefully you’re still allocating cashflow to investments to offset the real estate exposure you’re not getting through ownership.
That mortgage principal and interest is fixed for the life of the loan. Rent always goes up. Real estate builds wealth because it’s one of the most accessible ways to acquire an asset that historically beats inflation with easily accessible leverage. You can even rent it out after only a year of occupancy (although one can only have one FHA mortgage outstanding at a time).
There is always risk with any asset, but you have to live somewhere; might as well borrow to capture the upside if you’re going to stick around for a bit. If you’re renting, hopefully you’re still allocating cashflow to investments to offset the real estate exposure you’re not getting through ownership.
> an FHA mortgage only requires 3-5% down and a credit score of someone with a pulse
Those kinds of loans are a huge government subsisdy, contributing quite a bit to the unaffordability of housing. So many mortgages today are backed by the government. These came about in the 1930s with the New Deal.
Without government guarantees it would not make sense for banks to take on the risk of underwriting fixed rate low interest 30 year loans. Many other countries, like Canada and the UK for example, have mortgages that must be rolled over to new interest rates every 5 years. Would you wanted to underwrite a 30 year loan for 500k a couple years ago at 3%, knowing that rate could only go higher?
It's not fair. These government loan guarantees skew the price of housing, negatively impacting people who need a roof over their head and don't have the money to compete with investors who can bid up the aritificially limited supply of housing to make passive income collecting rents.
Those kinds of loans are a huge government subsisdy, contributing quite a bit to the unaffordability of housing. So many mortgages today are backed by the government. These came about in the 1930s with the New Deal.
Without government guarantees it would not make sense for banks to take on the risk of underwriting fixed rate low interest 30 year loans. Many other countries, like Canada and the UK for example, have mortgages that must be rolled over to new interest rates every 5 years. Would you wanted to underwrite a 30 year loan for 500k a couple years ago at 3%, knowing that rate could only go higher?
It's not fair. These government loan guarantees skew the price of housing, negatively impacting people who need a roof over their head and don't have the money to compete with investors who can bid up the aritificially limited supply of housing to make passive income collecting rents.
> Those kinds of loans are a huge government subsisdy, contributing quite a bit to the unaffordability of housing.
Not really.
Everyone bids as much as they can afford to pay on interest payments, which means that if you earn less, you miss out to those that can pay more than you. The interest rates and some other factors are mostly irrelevant to affordability. Change the interest rates, house prices move accordingly to just be affordable to those that bid, because people bid as much as they can to get a home. Things work a little differently in the US compared to New Zealand, but the gross mechanics are the same.
The mechanics of the bidding process, means there is a minimum price wall for most of the housing market in New Zealand (almost independent of the “worth” of the property) because there might be 30% of the population who can’t afford the mortgage payments at that price, so there is a lot of unmet demand below the minimum house price.
I also suspect houses are the engine of middle class working hours: buy something you can only just afford, work your butt off, upgrade to something more expensive if you have more money. Paying the principal is also enforced savings. Without those dynamics I am not sure how many people would retire in any form of comfort, or how the economy could get younger people to work so hard to support the number of retirees we have.
Not really.
Everyone bids as much as they can afford to pay on interest payments, which means that if you earn less, you miss out to those that can pay more than you. The interest rates and some other factors are mostly irrelevant to affordability. Change the interest rates, house prices move accordingly to just be affordable to those that bid, because people bid as much as they can to get a home. Things work a little differently in the US compared to New Zealand, but the gross mechanics are the same.
The mechanics of the bidding process, means there is a minimum price wall for most of the housing market in New Zealand (almost independent of the “worth” of the property) because there might be 30% of the population who can’t afford the mortgage payments at that price, so there is a lot of unmet demand below the minimum house price.
I also suspect houses are the engine of middle class working hours: buy something you can only just afford, work your butt off, upgrade to something more expensive if you have more money. Paying the principal is also enforced savings. Without those dynamics I am not sure how many people would retire in any form of comfort, or how the economy could get younger people to work so hard to support the number of retirees we have.
I think I follow, but I'm not sure if you're capturing all the factors.
For example, let's say you lived in Canada and bought a house 4 years ago for $300k with a 5 year 3% mortgage. You can't get a 30 year mortgage in Canada, the banks won't underwrite a loan that long. So you will have to enter a new loan next year, and lets say it will be at 6%. Your payments change, going up significantly. You might have to put the house on the market if you can't afford the new payments.
In the U.S. that same person would have had the option for a 30 year fixed rate government backed mortgage at a 3% interest rate, with only 3-5% down. They don't have to refinance in 5 years=, like in other countries. If interest rates go up, and they had nowhere else to go, their mortgage will not increase.
How could these government subsidies not be contributing some amount to an increase in housing costs? Doesn't that make it harder for people coming later to afford housing, since housing has increased in price so much faster than wages?
For example, let's say you lived in Canada and bought a house 4 years ago for $300k with a 5 year 3% mortgage. You can't get a 30 year mortgage in Canada, the banks won't underwrite a loan that long. So you will have to enter a new loan next year, and lets say it will be at 6%. Your payments change, going up significantly. You might have to put the house on the market if you can't afford the new payments.
In the U.S. that same person would have had the option for a 30 year fixed rate government backed mortgage at a 3% interest rate, with only 3-5% down. They don't have to refinance in 5 years=, like in other countries. If interest rates go up, and they had nowhere else to go, their mortgage will not increase.
How could these government subsidies not be contributing some amount to an increase in housing costs? Doesn't that make it harder for people coming later to afford housing, since housing has increased in price so much faster than wages?
Sure, in the short term, changes can put individuals under water. But I am actually talking about how the market moves.
Let’s ignore investors (they matter, but that complicates the argument).
If you have 10 houses and 20 people want a house, then the 10th person sets the minimum price, and they bid a price on the house so that they can only just afford a mortgage. 10 people miss out on a house because they are unaffordable, however the minimum house price was set by the 10th buyer who can only just fucking afford their mortgage payments (mostly interest). So minimum house prices depend on the earnings of the marginal buyer that can just afford a house. That marginal buyer is usually somewhere near median wages, so there is a lot of demand just below that price point, and no house will go for much cheaper because for most people it is better to own a shitty house than to rent.
Over the long term, the interest rate is almost irrelevant, because house prices are caused by interest rates.
There are a lot of misconceptions about house pricing - it needs to be looked at as a system - not from an individual’s point of view.
Let’s ignore investors (they matter, but that complicates the argument).
If you have 10 houses and 20 people want a house, then the 10th person sets the minimum price, and they bid a price on the house so that they can only just afford a mortgage. 10 people miss out on a house because they are unaffordable, however the minimum house price was set by the 10th buyer who can only just fucking afford their mortgage payments (mostly interest). So minimum house prices depend on the earnings of the marginal buyer that can just afford a house. That marginal buyer is usually somewhere near median wages, so there is a lot of demand just below that price point, and no house will go for much cheaper because for most people it is better to own a shitty house than to rent.
Over the long term, the interest rate is almost irrelevant, because house prices are caused by interest rates.
There are a lot of misconceptions about house pricing - it needs to be looked at as a system - not from an individual’s point of view.
I think that I follow what you are saying, but what happens now that first time buyers have to pay higher interest rates, and can't afford a large enough loan to tempt sellers out of the low-rate 30 year fixed mortgages that they are currently paying?
In Canada everyone has to refinance every 5 years. I assume there will be more liquidity in their housing market over the few couple years than there will be in the U.S., and that their prices are more free to adjust to current conditions.
I have difficulty seeing how government backed mortgages don't distort the market? It's such a high percentage of first time home buyers that receive these subsidies, and then those owners benefit when they can roll that extra equity into their next house at higher prices, while at the same time these higher prices mean that it becomes harder and harder for future first time buyers, especially now that rates are coming off long term historic lows. I've assumed these subsidies are one of the reasons why housing costs have grown so much faster than inflation and wages, helping those who got in a while ago and could ride the wave.
In Canada everyone has to refinance every 5 years. I assume there will be more liquidity in their housing market over the few couple years than there will be in the U.S., and that their prices are more free to adjust to current conditions.
I have difficulty seeing how government backed mortgages don't distort the market? It's such a high percentage of first time home buyers that receive these subsidies, and then those owners benefit when they can roll that extra equity into their next house at higher prices, while at the same time these higher prices mean that it becomes harder and harder for future first time buyers, especially now that rates are coming off long term historic lows. I've assumed these subsidies are one of the reasons why housing costs have grown so much faster than inflation and wages, helping those who got in a while ago and could ride the wave.
Let’s stick with the model of 10 houses with 20 people that want a house, and add some spherical assumptions: zero deposit, zero maintenance, zero taxes. 10 people above the median wage will get a house, and 10 people below the median wage don’t get a house. Let’s say Bob earns the median wage and Bob can just afford to spend $50k on mortgage costs.
Assuming an interest only mortgage: if mortgage rates are 10% then Bob can bid somewhere around $500k for a house, but if mortgage rates are 4% then Bob can bid somewhere around $1250k. But fundamentally the same 10 people get the 10 houses, and the same other 10 people miss out.
If we add in principal, taxes and maintenance: over a 30 year period Bob pays the same amount because Bob has bid the house price up to what he could only just afford. The amount Bob can only just afford is fixed by Bob’s income, so the amount Bob can afford is the constraint on what the lowest house price becomes due to his bidding.
That result is because the median buyer had to bid as much as they could afford, so house prices are caused by mortgage costs. The other 10 that got houses were bidding against each other, so they also pay as much as they can afford. Interest rates change the mixture of payments, but they don’t make those 10 houses more or less affordable.
If rates double in the long term then house prices should halve in the long term. In the short term with higher mortgage rates, most people stay in the home they have with the mortgage they have, and fewer houses transact.
Is there a housing shortage? Firstly most people are living somewhere, so perhaps there is already enough housing? Alternatively most people want a better place than where they are living, so there can never be enough housing? There are many places in the first world where there is enough housing, so the least wanted house will sell for $0. Yet high demand areas can perhaps never have enough housing? If New York doubled it’s housing tomorrow, how long before it would be back to the same prices?
A higher interest rate environment could possibly help the less well off, because they can save for a bigger deposit quicker?
All the different dynamics require some deeper analysis to determine what is actually happening. There is a lot of misinformation and common wild misunderstandings about how the market dynamics actually affect us.
I will add two real world observations.
Firstly, only a single digit percentage of homes are sold each year, so houses price expectations are set by a relatively small number of house purchases. A few years ago in Christchurch, New Zealand, auctions changed from nobody bidding on most houses to crazy crazy bidding. The economy didn’t really change, so there was a herd problem with housing prices. Certainly the economy didn’t get better by 30%, but house prices changed that much.
Secondly, an anecdote that mortgages drive house prices: I bought a house in Christchurch for less than half price of the equivalent house up the road. In 2010 we had a severe earthquake in Christchurch, which left many houses uninsurable. Some homes were perfectly safe (could be rented) but were uninsurable for technical policy reasons. Genreally you can’t get a mortgage on an uninsurable house, so in Christchurch we could see the situation where two equivalent houses would go for wildly different prices, because house prices are mostly driven by mortgages. The rental yield on my property would theoretically be high so investors should have bid on it, but they didn’t: maybe because small investors had already spent their money buying houses, and maybe corporate investors felt it was a risky market due to earthquake risk?
Assuming an interest only mortgage: if mortgage rates are 10% then Bob can bid somewhere around $500k for a house, but if mortgage rates are 4% then Bob can bid somewhere around $1250k. But fundamentally the same 10 people get the 10 houses, and the same other 10 people miss out.
If we add in principal, taxes and maintenance: over a 30 year period Bob pays the same amount because Bob has bid the house price up to what he could only just afford. The amount Bob can only just afford is fixed by Bob’s income, so the amount Bob can afford is the constraint on what the lowest house price becomes due to his bidding.
That result is because the median buyer had to bid as much as they could afford, so house prices are caused by mortgage costs. The other 10 that got houses were bidding against each other, so they also pay as much as they can afford. Interest rates change the mixture of payments, but they don’t make those 10 houses more or less affordable.
If rates double in the long term then house prices should halve in the long term. In the short term with higher mortgage rates, most people stay in the home they have with the mortgage they have, and fewer houses transact.
Is there a housing shortage? Firstly most people are living somewhere, so perhaps there is already enough housing? Alternatively most people want a better place than where they are living, so there can never be enough housing? There are many places in the first world where there is enough housing, so the least wanted house will sell for $0. Yet high demand areas can perhaps never have enough housing? If New York doubled it’s housing tomorrow, how long before it would be back to the same prices?
A higher interest rate environment could possibly help the less well off, because they can save for a bigger deposit quicker?
All the different dynamics require some deeper analysis to determine what is actually happening. There is a lot of misinformation and common wild misunderstandings about how the market dynamics actually affect us.
I will add two real world observations.
Firstly, only a single digit percentage of homes are sold each year, so houses price expectations are set by a relatively small number of house purchases. A few years ago in Christchurch, New Zealand, auctions changed from nobody bidding on most houses to crazy crazy bidding. The economy didn’t really change, so there was a herd problem with housing prices. Certainly the economy didn’t get better by 30%, but house prices changed that much.
Secondly, an anecdote that mortgages drive house prices: I bought a house in Christchurch for less than half price of the equivalent house up the road. In 2010 we had a severe earthquake in Christchurch, which left many houses uninsurable. Some homes were perfectly safe (could be rented) but were uninsurable for technical policy reasons. Genreally you can’t get a mortgage on an uninsurable house, so in Christchurch we could see the situation where two equivalent houses would go for wildly different prices, because house prices are mostly driven by mortgages. The rental yield on my property would theoretically be high so investors should have bid on it, but they didn’t: maybe because small investors had already spent their money buying houses, and maybe corporate investors felt it was a risky market due to earthquake risk?
Thanks for the additional explanation. You seem to be describing how people bid on houses with offers based on the highest mortgage payment they can afford, and this sets the market prices for housing.
I don't argue that this is not a factor. But couldn't government subsidies also be a factor, especially if they are not given evenly to everyone?
In the U.S. we have:
1) Government backed mortgages, allowing borrowers to get mortgage loans below long term bond market rates because the government/taxpayers are taking on the risk of default. Do they have 30 year fixed mortgages in New Zealand? Until last year you could get a 30 years fixed mortgage in the U.S. at a 3% interest rate (which has increased to 7% this year).
2) First time home buyer subsidies, allowing for minimal 1-3% down payments, instead of the normal 20% or 5% or more with the additional expense of private mortgage insurance, there's currently also proposed new legislation for a first time home buyer credit credit worth up to 10% of the home price, or $15k max for a married couple.
3) Tax deductions for the interest portion of mortgage payments (this was made less relevant for the owners of modest homes a few years ago, by giving everyone a larger standard deduction, but these deductions still help those with homes more expensive than the average, and will become much more relevant with the current higher interest rates)
4) Capital gains tax exemption, allowing $250k of profits (double if married) made from sale of a primary residence to be made tax free, unlike other investments that are taxed at 15-28%, encouraging houses to be used as investments (it's possible to make money as a landlord renting a place out for years then live there two years before selling for the large tax break, people do this with vacation/retirement homes all the time)
5) Two large taxpayer bailouts, because banks were writing 30 year mortgages without taking into account the risks, effectively the government and taxpayers ended up on the hook as a cosigner for all the bad loans (the 1980s Saving & Loans bailout, and the 2008 "To Big to Fail" Great Recession)
6) Restrictive zoning, greatly reducing the supply of housing in desirable areas (where the jobs are), which has the effect of maintaining high prices as the population and demand grows (zoning for new housing overwhelmingly favors single-use single-family neighborhoods on the outskirts of town, and the large developers who build them)
I have trouble wrapping my brain around how the above wouldn't have an uneven affect on market prices.
It seems that people who bought before each of these subsidies went into effect (over the last 85 years) would benefit most, as the prices of houses would be bid up as time went by, according to what people can afford with new subsidies in place.
It also seems that people with more income and in higher tax brackets are being strongly encouraged to invest in housing, as opposed to other possibly more socially productive (but unsubsidized) investments. They can also borrow to leverage their housing investments much more than is legal for other investments like stocks. These subsidized investors act to bid up the price of all housing, competing on price with people just trying to put a roof over their heads.
There's other countries like Japan and Austria that have much different regulations around housing and mortgages and have much different outcomes when it comes to affordable housing, so I've assumed that the stuff I'm talking about makes some kind of difference.
Would you disagree, or say that the buyers income is the only factor that matters?
I don't argue that this is not a factor. But couldn't government subsidies also be a factor, especially if they are not given evenly to everyone?
In the U.S. we have:
1) Government backed mortgages, allowing borrowers to get mortgage loans below long term bond market rates because the government/taxpayers are taking on the risk of default. Do they have 30 year fixed mortgages in New Zealand? Until last year you could get a 30 years fixed mortgage in the U.S. at a 3% interest rate (which has increased to 7% this year).
2) First time home buyer subsidies, allowing for minimal 1-3% down payments, instead of the normal 20% or 5% or more with the additional expense of private mortgage insurance, there's currently also proposed new legislation for a first time home buyer credit credit worth up to 10% of the home price, or $15k max for a married couple.
3) Tax deductions for the interest portion of mortgage payments (this was made less relevant for the owners of modest homes a few years ago, by giving everyone a larger standard deduction, but these deductions still help those with homes more expensive than the average, and will become much more relevant with the current higher interest rates)
4) Capital gains tax exemption, allowing $250k of profits (double if married) made from sale of a primary residence to be made tax free, unlike other investments that are taxed at 15-28%, encouraging houses to be used as investments (it's possible to make money as a landlord renting a place out for years then live there two years before selling for the large tax break, people do this with vacation/retirement homes all the time)
5) Two large taxpayer bailouts, because banks were writing 30 year mortgages without taking into account the risks, effectively the government and taxpayers ended up on the hook as a cosigner for all the bad loans (the 1980s Saving & Loans bailout, and the 2008 "To Big to Fail" Great Recession)
6) Restrictive zoning, greatly reducing the supply of housing in desirable areas (where the jobs are), which has the effect of maintaining high prices as the population and demand grows (zoning for new housing overwhelmingly favors single-use single-family neighborhoods on the outskirts of town, and the large developers who build them)
I have trouble wrapping my brain around how the above wouldn't have an uneven affect on market prices.
It seems that people who bought before each of these subsidies went into effect (over the last 85 years) would benefit most, as the prices of houses would be bid up as time went by, according to what people can afford with new subsidies in place.
It also seems that people with more income and in higher tax brackets are being strongly encouraged to invest in housing, as opposed to other possibly more socially productive (but unsubsidized) investments. They can also borrow to leverage their housing investments much more than is legal for other investments like stocks. These subsidized investors act to bid up the price of all housing, competing on price with people just trying to put a roof over their heads.
There's other countries like Japan and Austria that have much different regulations around housing and mortgages and have much different outcomes when it comes to affordable housing, so I've assumed that the stuff I'm talking about makes some kind of difference.
Would you disagree, or say that the buyers income is the only factor that matters?
I guess I wasn’t being clear because I agree with all your points, and I agree that government interventions change prices. You originally said:
For comparisons of mortgages around the world, read: https://business.sdsu.edu/_resources/files/real-estate/resea...
I wrote a couple of comments about my local housing market that touch on some of your points: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33474588 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33361273
Does densification solve anything? Well, New York has very high density but that has not made it cheap. One issue is that there is near unlimited demand for popular locations, so there must be some mechanism where some people miss out . . . Missing out will always feel unfair.
> contributing quite a bit to the unaffordability of housing.
> It's not fair. These government loan guarantees skew the price of housing, negatively impacting people who need a roof over their head and don't have the money to compete with investors who can bid up the aritificially limited supply of housing to make passive income collecting rents.
For comparisons of mortgages around the world, read: https://business.sdsu.edu/_resources/files/real-estate/resea...
I wrote a couple of comments about my local housing market that touch on some of your points: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33474588 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33361273
Does densification solve anything? Well, New York has very high density but that has not made it cheap. One issue is that there is near unlimited demand for popular locations, so there must be some mechanism where some people miss out . . . Missing out will always feel unfair.
(Disclosure: I fully support all reasonable measures to make housing more affordable)
On the contrary, government backed mortgages provide an opportunity for buyers to become homeowners competing against institutional investors and cash buyers.
They are a subsidy, but that’s not a bad thing if desired policy is to encourage home ownership. I would very much like to see your data that these mortgages are what cause unaffordable housing, versus lack of supply, institutional investors buying up residential real estate, restrictive zoning, and most recently, a real estate asset bubble due to Federal Reserve zero interest rate monetary policy (which caused real estate prices to skyrocket when money is cheap).
> Would you wanted to underwrite a 30 year loan for 500k a couple years ago at 3%, knowing that rate could only go higher?
Tangentially, the bond market seems to be a peace with 30 year mortgage terms, probably because the life of a 30 year fixed term mortgage is typically under a decade (while being amortized over said 30 years).
On the contrary, government backed mortgages provide an opportunity for buyers to become homeowners competing against institutional investors and cash buyers.
They are a subsidy, but that’s not a bad thing if desired policy is to encourage home ownership. I would very much like to see your data that these mortgages are what cause unaffordable housing, versus lack of supply, institutional investors buying up residential real estate, restrictive zoning, and most recently, a real estate asset bubble due to Federal Reserve zero interest rate monetary policy (which caused real estate prices to skyrocket when money is cheap).
> Would you wanted to underwrite a 30 year loan for 500k a couple years ago at 3%, knowing that rate could only go higher?
Tangentially, the bond market seems to be a peace with 30 year mortgage terms, probably because the life of a 30 year fixed term mortgage is typically under a decade (while being amortized over said 30 years).
On the one hand, if the government helps to lower mortgage interest rates, which they have, then they are acting to increase the price of housing some amount, given the laws of supply and demand. In Canada and the UK people will have to refinance every few years in this rising interest rate environment, which will put downward pressure on housing prices.
On the other hand I agree with what you said about institutional investors being difficult to compete with. This is the downside of housing being prioritized as an investment. Investors know that supply is constricted, so they are taking advantage. I would address this by taxing investors and making it easier to increase supply, not subsidies that inflating the price for everyone trying to put a roof over their head.
> the bond market seems to be a peace with 30 year mortgage terms
I'd be pretty easy-going about a government backed loan, too. That's a lot less risk. That means the interest rates are lower than they would be if the government was not guaranteeing them.
On the other hand I agree with what you said about institutional investors being difficult to compete with. This is the downside of housing being prioritized as an investment. Investors know that supply is constricted, so they are taking advantage. I would address this by taxing investors and making it easier to increase supply, not subsidies that inflating the price for everyone trying to put a roof over their head.
> the bond market seems to be a peace with 30 year mortgage terms
I'd be pretty easy-going about a government backed loan, too. That's a lot less risk. That means the interest rates are lower than they would be if the government was not guaranteeing them.
3% of 350k is still over $10,000, which is a big chunk of change for the vast majority of Americans.
$2,450 is the monthly payment, that's 4 months of payments to hit $10k.
Because if you’re rich enough, you don’t need any.
> This is not always true.
Its usually true in urban areas especially given the somewhat global housing shortage that seems to plague most of the big cities around the world right now. Definitely true in mine, renting is way more expensive here and now rates have risen and landlords have sold up its spiking even more due to lack of supply.
Its usually true in urban areas especially given the somewhat global housing shortage that seems to plague most of the big cities around the world right now. Definitely true in mine, renting is way more expensive here and now rates have risen and landlords have sold up its spiking even more due to lack of supply.
Renters pay for mortgage, property tax, insurance, repairs, maintenance, and utilities. Along with a bonus middle man fee to the landlord.
As a renter, you're paying at least 1/N of things like utilities and maintenance, where N is the number of renters for that property, right?
In the case of N=1, where someone is renting a single family home, you must be paying at least as much as if you owned the home, since presumably the landlord wants to make some profit on top of all the expenses being passed to you.
In the case of N=1, where someone is renting a single family home, you must be paying at least as much as if you owned the home, since presumably the landlord wants to make some profit on top of all the expenses being passed to you.
Your simplified model leads you to the wrong conclusion. You need a better model to understand the nuisances
It really depends.
On your jurisdiction. On your market.
In my country, renting carries a strong risk of instability. As our rental laws were written in the 60s, when it was something you only did while at university.
After the Christchurch earthquake, I ended up moving house 3 times in 2 years. Why? Because the landlord wanted or needed the house back.
The first one, the farm the cottage was on was sold, and the new owner wanted it for worker accommodation.
The second one, the owner's house was red-zoned[0], and he needed somewhere to live.
The third one, the owners had bought it for their retirement, and were renting it out until then. Not that I knew that up front.
But, 10 months in, they decided to retire.
So how much cheaper was it to rent, considering the costs involved with moving, the cost of cleaning rentals you're leaving, the time you spend finding a new rental, and the letting fee that every property manager used to charge until recent legislation?
And I haven't even mentioned the cost that such instability imposes on you and your family. My oldest son has lived in about 11 different houses. Renting!
> A renter can walk away any time
In my country, that wasn't true on a fixed term tenancy, you were liable for rent for the entire term.
TL;DR - it depends.
Oh, and fun fact, my mortgage repayments + taxes + insurance + maintenance are significantly cheaper than the rents I'd been paying for significantly worse houses.
Which makes sense, when the "Mum and Dad" investors are using your rent + tax breaks to cover the ongoing costs until they can sell for sweet tax-free capital gains, of course you're paying more.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_red_zone
On your jurisdiction. On your market.
In my country, renting carries a strong risk of instability. As our rental laws were written in the 60s, when it was something you only did while at university.
After the Christchurch earthquake, I ended up moving house 3 times in 2 years. Why? Because the landlord wanted or needed the house back.
The first one, the farm the cottage was on was sold, and the new owner wanted it for worker accommodation.
The second one, the owner's house was red-zoned[0], and he needed somewhere to live.
The third one, the owners had bought it for their retirement, and were renting it out until then. Not that I knew that up front.
But, 10 months in, they decided to retire.
So how much cheaper was it to rent, considering the costs involved with moving, the cost of cleaning rentals you're leaving, the time you spend finding a new rental, and the letting fee that every property manager used to charge until recent legislation?
And I haven't even mentioned the cost that such instability imposes on you and your family. My oldest son has lived in about 11 different houses. Renting!
> A renter can walk away any time
In my country, that wasn't true on a fixed term tenancy, you were liable for rent for the entire term.
TL;DR - it depends.
Oh, and fun fact, my mortgage repayments + taxes + insurance + maintenance are significantly cheaper than the rents I'd been paying for significantly worse houses.
Which makes sense, when the "Mum and Dad" investors are using your rent + tax breaks to cover the ongoing costs until they can sell for sweet tax-free capital gains, of course you're paying more.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residential_red_zone
"One analysis of tax burdens relative to income suggests that in ten US states the percentage of income spent on taxes by low-income people is six times greater than that paid by the wealthy"
The footnote is to a study at https://itep.org/whopays/ - is this a reputable study? If so the findings seem like something people should be objecting to in the strongest terms possible - I'd be horrified if it were true in Australia. But at the highest level it seems to contradict the usual numbers you see floated around where the wealthiest X% pay Y% of all taxes (where X is considerably less than Y).
The footnote is to a study at https://itep.org/whopays/ - is this a reputable study? If so the findings seem like something people should be objecting to in the strongest terms possible - I'd be horrified if it were true in Australia. But at the highest level it seems to contradict the usual numbers you see floated around where the wealthiest X% pay Y% of all taxes (where X is considerably less than Y).
The cost of renting furniture surprised me.
My wife and I were looking for a dining room table to rent for Thanksgiving. Our house has a dining room that goes largely unused, as its just the two of us and we eat in the kitchen. However, we were having a large party for Thanksgiving and wanted to make sure that everyone had a place to sit, but just for that day, hence the need for a table rental.
She found a great listing on Rent a Center: a perfect table for $24/week. Perfect!
Then we saw the fine print: You couldn't rent anything for less than three months, and late fees were SUPER high.
We would have needed to spend at least $360 to rent this table, which makes no sense!
The kicker? This table was a $500 table.
I feel bad for people that have no choice but to rent furniture.
My wife and I were looking for a dining room table to rent for Thanksgiving. Our house has a dining room that goes largely unused, as its just the two of us and we eat in the kitchen. However, we were having a large party for Thanksgiving and wanted to make sure that everyone had a place to sit, but just for that day, hence the need for a table rental.
She found a great listing on Rent a Center: a perfect table for $24/week. Perfect!
Then we saw the fine print: You couldn't rent anything for less than three months, and late fees were SUPER high.
We would have needed to spend at least $360 to rent this table, which makes no sense!
The kicker? This table was a $500 table.
I feel bad for people that have no choice but to rent furniture.
I was shocked to learn what "Credit Card" means in the US.
Here (Israel) a Credit Card is always connected to a bank account and at the end of each month the accumulated debt is just recovered from the balance. It's done automatically and you would get a very stern phone call (from your bank) if you balance is not enough.
Of course, the CC companies and banks would be happy to give you a loan with outrageous interest rates, but that takes a phone call, or a form on their website.
From a human fallibility point of view, American CCs are evil.
Here (Israel) a Credit Card is always connected to a bank account and at the end of each month the accumulated debt is just recovered from the balance. It's done automatically and you would get a very stern phone call (from your bank) if you balance is not enough.
Of course, the CC companies and banks would be happy to give you a loan with outrageous interest rates, but that takes a phone call, or a form on their website.
From a human fallibility point of view, American CCs are evil.
> Of course, the CC companies and banks would be happy to give you a loan with outrageous interest rates, but that takes a phone call
I mean it’s exactly the same here, except the loan doesn’t require a phone call. There’s no interest if you pay off your card every month.
I mean it’s exactly the same here, except the loan doesn’t require a phone call. There’s no interest if you pay off your card every month.
Inflation really hurts the poor.
When you can't afford groceries at $70 a week you surely can't afford groceries at $120.
When you can't afford groceries at $70 a week you surely can't afford groceries at $120.
Back in the 90s in L.A., I remember that that some grocery store chains were routinely more expensive than others (e.g., Vons always cost more than Lucky’s). I found it interesting while exploring some neighborhoods that in lower-income parts of the city, I was more likely to see the more expensive grocery chain than the less expensive one. And that’s putting aside the whole food desert issue with South Central where there weren’t any grocery stores at all. I’m not sure how the grocery situation looks now.
Yeah if I wasn't poor I'd buy a farm to create food for myself. Why pay someone else to make the boots! But a farm costs lots of money, and though I have leather boots, I'm still paying to be poor in other ways. In many many ways.
This doesn't just affect Americans. The article describes an obvious concept to anyone not privileged.
This doesn't just affect Americans. The article describes an obvious concept to anyone not privileged.
In the UK we make it much cheaper to be poor than <whatever you call the 20% of people above the poor>. That's nice, but it also means we have a lot more poor people, and that people trying to stop being poor get fucked. I am not justifying either choice. I am just saying you pick your problem and live with it...
It's really shocking to see the disconnect between middle-ish class and everyone below them. The same way I find it shocking to see how the same group almost worships millionaires/billionaires thinking they can easily enter those classes if they just work hard, I find it shocking to see how little critical thinking is applied to seeing the problem from someone else's perspective.
My family was poor, but luckily due to a number of circumstances, we had a place to live and we had access to a gas cooker and grandparents that could provide the raw ingredients for food - the beans, flour, meat that people keep quoting. Without those, we couldn't have made it through many months of me growing up. I was also fortunate enough to have access to those as I know the importance of a healthy diet for a child growing up. None of the vegetables we got from them or the meat was processed, filled with pesticides or other chemicals or any growth hormones or antibiotics.
Remove this safety net which was obtainable through hard work (it's a lot and I really mean it, a lot of work to grow plants and vegetables when almost all farming is done using manual tools) and I might've suffered from the same problems some of my classmates at the time - overweight, underweight, etc...
While most raw ingredients can be cheap, even cheap is relative. Through an even darker period in life, I had the chance to see first hand what it meant to not have enough money to even get to the next month. When all outgoings are 120-125% of your monthly income, there is nowhere else to go. I used to smoke (a lot) smuggled cigarettes (couldn't afford buying them at the shop) because it was cheaper than eating and they are appetite suppressants. So instead of spending money on buying food (let's say 5 dollars per family in my part of the world per day) we'd smoke (1 dollar per day) and live of whatever we could get for free. It generally meant one meal per day (not nutritious at all because surprisingly most foodbanks aren't filled with organic avocados).
This then brings me to the last point which is - you might not know how to cook it, you might not have time to cook it (I had worked a job at a point where I would start at 6 AM to 10 PM to make enough to get some food) and you might just not have money to buy those things. A recent scheme to place immigrants in the UK places them in modified hotels. Your average hotel room doesn't have a kitchen so that means you can at most cook something in a microwave. Pot noodles (one pack per day in a good scenario) is what most people eat in that scenario. Your 50 cent organic bananas each can be a pack of instant noodles (36 cents at walmart for beef noodles) which can hide your hunger and maybe leave you enough for your children or to pay those pesky electricity/heating/gas bills.
Never forget the fact that having a shelter, food and safety are privileges. We like to think that they are rights, but if that's the case, we failed more than half the planet. Be happy for being able to sleep with a full belly, in a warm room and a locked door, a lot of people can't afford those things.
My family was poor, but luckily due to a number of circumstances, we had a place to live and we had access to a gas cooker and grandparents that could provide the raw ingredients for food - the beans, flour, meat that people keep quoting. Without those, we couldn't have made it through many months of me growing up. I was also fortunate enough to have access to those as I know the importance of a healthy diet for a child growing up. None of the vegetables we got from them or the meat was processed, filled with pesticides or other chemicals or any growth hormones or antibiotics.
Remove this safety net which was obtainable through hard work (it's a lot and I really mean it, a lot of work to grow plants and vegetables when almost all farming is done using manual tools) and I might've suffered from the same problems some of my classmates at the time - overweight, underweight, etc...
While most raw ingredients can be cheap, even cheap is relative. Through an even darker period in life, I had the chance to see first hand what it meant to not have enough money to even get to the next month. When all outgoings are 120-125% of your monthly income, there is nowhere else to go. I used to smoke (a lot) smuggled cigarettes (couldn't afford buying them at the shop) because it was cheaper than eating and they are appetite suppressants. So instead of spending money on buying food (let's say 5 dollars per family in my part of the world per day) we'd smoke (1 dollar per day) and live of whatever we could get for free. It generally meant one meal per day (not nutritious at all because surprisingly most foodbanks aren't filled with organic avocados).
This then brings me to the last point which is - you might not know how to cook it, you might not have time to cook it (I had worked a job at a point where I would start at 6 AM to 10 PM to make enough to get some food) and you might just not have money to buy those things. A recent scheme to place immigrants in the UK places them in modified hotels. Your average hotel room doesn't have a kitchen so that means you can at most cook something in a microwave. Pot noodles (one pack per day in a good scenario) is what most people eat in that scenario. Your 50 cent organic bananas each can be a pack of instant noodles (36 cents at walmart for beef noodles) which can hide your hunger and maybe leave you enough for your children or to pay those pesky electricity/heating/gas bills.
Never forget the fact that having a shelter, food and safety are privileges. We like to think that they are rights, but if that's the case, we failed more than half the planet. Be happy for being able to sleep with a full belly, in a warm room and a locked door, a lot of people can't afford those things.
I just do not understand the concept of renting a property. If you can't live there, let other people do!
How good is that system for society? You're rich enough to buy extra property, then you make money of poorer people. That's sick.
nonsense headline and thesis.
I hate articles like this, and especially the "boots" example. Like most things, it sounds great in theory. Reality is usually much different.
>“Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars."
So he makes $38 per month...where is that other money going? As a cowboy, he is spending that on whiskey and prostitutes. We've all seen the movies. These days, it is the exact same thing where people spend their excess money on crap - big screen tv's, and that kind of stuff, even if they are very poor.
People do not do comparison shopping to get the right price. People wait to the bitter end before they fill up their car with gasoline, and do it at the gas station that costs $.50 cents more per gallon, but they travel past a station that is less expensive all the time, they are just not near it when they absolutely need gas at that second - they could fill up their tank when it is 1/4 tank left at the cheap gas station - people don't plan ahead.
It's pretty easy to lift oneself out of poverty in many (not all) cases, but people are ruled by emotions and what they want at this second. People don't plan. They don't comparison shop. When they get a little extra cash to buy in bulk quantities on some kind of thing like a great toilet paper sale - they spent the money on a dinner at a restaurant instead, because "they deserve it".
I'm not saying this is the same with all poor people - if you are a single mother with 2 young children, well, that's tough if you have nobody to help you out.
.
Furthermore, that cowboy in the example could go out and try to get a side hustle. Make enough extra to get more basics.
And the "food deserts" are complete bullshit, in reality. Yes, there are places that don't have large grocery stores, for sure. BUT, when I looked at a map in Chicago, for instance, there are Costcos and all kinds of stores that are 5 miles away. There's no desert, unless you mean that there's no grocery stores within a block. But one of my relatives lived in a remote area and traveled 1 hour to get to Costco to make big purchases of living staples. So if a poor person doesn't have a car, well, they need to work - find someone who has a car that can drive you there and split expenses. Find a church that has a van to travel there. Yes, you have to work at it a little bit, I personally am not going to life someone up and carry them piggyback for 5 miles because they don't want to work at finding someone to help them.
I'm looking at ALL this stuff in the article and it's almost all bullshit...but one does have to try to figure it out. It is not super easy, but it isn't super hard either.
The main problem, though, is that people just don't want to what is necessary.
>“Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars."
So he makes $38 per month...where is that other money going? As a cowboy, he is spending that on whiskey and prostitutes. We've all seen the movies. These days, it is the exact same thing where people spend their excess money on crap - big screen tv's, and that kind of stuff, even if they are very poor.
People do not do comparison shopping to get the right price. People wait to the bitter end before they fill up their car with gasoline, and do it at the gas station that costs $.50 cents more per gallon, but they travel past a station that is less expensive all the time, they are just not near it when they absolutely need gas at that second - they could fill up their tank when it is 1/4 tank left at the cheap gas station - people don't plan ahead.
It's pretty easy to lift oneself out of poverty in many (not all) cases, but people are ruled by emotions and what they want at this second. People don't plan. They don't comparison shop. When they get a little extra cash to buy in bulk quantities on some kind of thing like a great toilet paper sale - they spent the money on a dinner at a restaurant instead, because "they deserve it".
I'm not saying this is the same with all poor people - if you are a single mother with 2 young children, well, that's tough if you have nobody to help you out.
.
Furthermore, that cowboy in the example could go out and try to get a side hustle. Make enough extra to get more basics.
And the "food deserts" are complete bullshit, in reality. Yes, there are places that don't have large grocery stores, for sure. BUT, when I looked at a map in Chicago, for instance, there are Costcos and all kinds of stores that are 5 miles away. There's no desert, unless you mean that there's no grocery stores within a block. But one of my relatives lived in a remote area and traveled 1 hour to get to Costco to make big purchases of living staples. So if a poor person doesn't have a car, well, they need to work - find someone who has a car that can drive you there and split expenses. Find a church that has a van to travel there. Yes, you have to work at it a little bit, I personally am not going to life someone up and carry them piggyback for 5 miles because they don't want to work at finding someone to help them.
I'm looking at ALL this stuff in the article and it's almost all bullshit...but one does have to try to figure it out. It is not super easy, but it isn't super hard either.
The main problem, though, is that people just don't want to what is necessary.
Doing what is necessary demands a lot of energy. Every way to save a few dollars demands more of your time and it adds up.
We the lucky ones get to hire help when it suits us. We can budget our energy, and replace it with money as needed. When it runs out we can catch a break in a nice restaurant or on a beach. We also make dumb mistakes with our money, but they don’t hurt. We can say “today I’m too tired to cook” without being judged harshly. We can pay more for gas and still eat that week.
If you’re in such a comfortable situation, you might forget how tired poor people are, and how little slack they actually get. The demands of their situation are much greater and their energy is not unlimited.
The demands of your situation are far gentler. I consider exercising empathy to be part of them.
We the lucky ones get to hire help when it suits us. We can budget our energy, and replace it with money as needed. When it runs out we can catch a break in a nice restaurant or on a beach. We also make dumb mistakes with our money, but they don’t hurt. We can say “today I’m too tired to cook” without being judged harshly. We can pay more for gas and still eat that week.
If you’re in such a comfortable situation, you might forget how tired poor people are, and how little slack they actually get. The demands of their situation are much greater and their energy is not unlimited.
The demands of your situation are far gentler. I consider exercising empathy to be part of them.
I've been poor and tired a long time ago. I know what it is like. But it is what it is, and you have to deal with it, right? You can't just do nothing. So, at least what I did, is work on the extra work that would give me the highest payback and greatest time savings, because that shit build on itself. The first thing I did was to buy what staples that I could in bulk. Not only did it save me money, but it prevented me from having to go out and make special trips to purchase those items - so I got a LOT of time back.
I started making food in bulk, and froze it, and food prepped on Sunday so I didn't have to make food every day, just grab and go. Saves a LOT of time.
To this day, I do the same thing, and have not changed anything, because that stuff got ingrained in me. I don't really have dumb mistakes with my money, too much, as I am super careful and have priorities.
But, if you are poor, what can you do? You still have to work and try to get out of poverty, even if you are tired. So one should try to think what they can do to get the best payback for everything they do, and do that first.
Like if you're poor but still own a car, and driving to work takes $50/week in gas, then maybe buying a bicycle and bicycling to work might save $2,500 per year in gas. If one is healthy enough. I'm not saying to do this - it is just an example. But still, if one could, that's an easy $2,500 per year. Then you take that money and use it to buy toilet paper, beans, rice, and other staples in bulk. This means you get a discount for bulk, PLUS you don't have to go buy them every week and take time and effort to do that.
I hope you get what I'm talking about.
I started making food in bulk, and froze it, and food prepped on Sunday so I didn't have to make food every day, just grab and go. Saves a LOT of time.
To this day, I do the same thing, and have not changed anything, because that stuff got ingrained in me. I don't really have dumb mistakes with my money, too much, as I am super careful and have priorities.
But, if you are poor, what can you do? You still have to work and try to get out of poverty, even if you are tired. So one should try to think what they can do to get the best payback for everything they do, and do that first.
Like if you're poor but still own a car, and driving to work takes $50/week in gas, then maybe buying a bicycle and bicycling to work might save $2,500 per year in gas. If one is healthy enough. I'm not saying to do this - it is just an example. But still, if one could, that's an easy $2,500 per year. Then you take that money and use it to buy toilet paper, beans, rice, and other staples in bulk. This means you get a discount for bulk, PLUS you don't have to go buy them every week and take time and effort to do that.
I hope you get what I'm talking about.
> I've been poor and tired a long time ago. I know what it is like.
How many times have they turned off your water?
"When someone is telling me they are or have been poor and I’m trying to determine how poor exactly they were, there’s one evergreen question I ask that has never failed to give me a good idea of what kind of situation I’m dealing with. That question is: “How many times have they turned off your water?”."
That's from here: https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/on-the-experience-of-be...
Please forgive me my curiosity. The linked article was somewhat eye-opening for me on who is poor and who isn't, and I now keep asking this question too. So, how many?
How many times have they turned off your water?
"When someone is telling me they are or have been poor and I’m trying to determine how poor exactly they were, there’s one evergreen question I ask that has never failed to give me a good idea of what kind of situation I’m dealing with. That question is: “How many times have they turned off your water?”."
That's from here: https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/on-the-experience-of-be...
Please forgive me my curiosity. The linked article was somewhat eye-opening for me on who is poor and who isn't, and I now keep asking this question too. So, how many?
>How many times have they turned off your water?
That is not a fair question.
The issue is not how many times my water has been turned off. The question is what has led the water to be turned off at someone's house that has had their water turned off.
At some point, sure, there is nothing you can do. If someone has had polio and is in one of those polio breathing machines (https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/av7qWyq_700b.jpg), then yes, there's nothing anyone can do there, for sure. Or if someone runs out into a busy street and gets run over and killed because they didn't look, nobody can bring them back to life.
But if you put aside those examples, I need to know what they did, and where they are, and what they are capable of doing. Based on that information, I could advise them on what to do so that it doesn't happen in the future.
Unfortunately, as I have learned the hard way, I could share this info with people on how to prevent it from happening in the future, but only 1 person out of 10,000 will actually want to change their life and do things a new way. That's the hard cold facts. A person who gets their water turned off over and over is doing the same exact things that get their water turned off over and over. If I had 100% control of their money, and could force their arms and legs to do what I want them to do, it wouldn't happen.
I mean, I looked on indeed.com and there is a job that pays $35/hour to answer phones, do light filing, front desk receptionist. That's $70K per year. I could go to that person, help them fill out a resume, send it to the company, tell them how to dress and role play with them on how to interview, but 9,999 times out of 10,000, we'll do all that work and they won't show up to the interview. And have some kind of excuse, of which I know what most of the excuses would be.
That's how it is.
That is not a fair question.
The issue is not how many times my water has been turned off. The question is what has led the water to be turned off at someone's house that has had their water turned off.
At some point, sure, there is nothing you can do. If someone has had polio and is in one of those polio breathing machines (https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/av7qWyq_700b.jpg), then yes, there's nothing anyone can do there, for sure. Or if someone runs out into a busy street and gets run over and killed because they didn't look, nobody can bring them back to life.
But if you put aside those examples, I need to know what they did, and where they are, and what they are capable of doing. Based on that information, I could advise them on what to do so that it doesn't happen in the future.
Unfortunately, as I have learned the hard way, I could share this info with people on how to prevent it from happening in the future, but only 1 person out of 10,000 will actually want to change their life and do things a new way. That's the hard cold facts. A person who gets their water turned off over and over is doing the same exact things that get their water turned off over and over. If I had 100% control of their money, and could force their arms and legs to do what I want them to do, it wouldn't happen.
I mean, I looked on indeed.com and there is a job that pays $35/hour to answer phones, do light filing, front desk receptionist. That's $70K per year. I could go to that person, help them fill out a resume, send it to the company, tell them how to dress and role play with them on how to interview, but 9,999 times out of 10,000, we'll do all that work and they won't show up to the interview. And have some kind of excuse, of which I know what most of the excuses would be.
That's how it is.
> But if you put aside those examples, I need to know what they did, and where they are, and what they are capable of doing.
Interestingly enough, the article I linked in my previous comment[0], and another one by the same person[1], have answers to your questions. Also, that particular person managed to get out of poverty eventually, and wrote a follow-up post on that[2].
So that's the guy who was /really/ poor, and struggled for a while. He has some insight on what it is like and why it is so hard to get out. I guess he'd be infuriated by this patronizing "hey, that's easy, why don't you just...", even though he does not write it out loud.
Let's have more compassion to those who are less lucky than us, fellow stranger, shall we?
[0] https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/on-the-experience-of-be...
[1] https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/what-does-shitty-job-me...
[2] https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/on-being-rich-ish-lesso...
Interestingly enough, the article I linked in my previous comment[0], and another one by the same person[1], have answers to your questions. Also, that particular person managed to get out of poverty eventually, and wrote a follow-up post on that[2].
So that's the guy who was /really/ poor, and struggled for a while. He has some insight on what it is like and why it is so hard to get out. I guess he'd be infuriated by this patronizing "hey, that's easy, why don't you just...", even though he does not write it out loud.
Let's have more compassion to those who are less lucky than us, fellow stranger, shall we?
[0] https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/on-the-experience-of-be...
[1] https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/what-does-shitty-job-me...
[2] https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/on-being-rich-ish-lesso...
This is really out of touch. First off, poor people can’t afford Costco memberships. Second, 5 miles is a very long distance in Chicago. How can someone justify spending an hour in traffic each way, and with what car?
That was just an example saying Costco. But, one can try to find someone who has a Costco membership and make a trip together. Or maybe going in on a membership with someone else. If a Costco is near enough, it would make sense to find the money to buy one, because the savings would give enough money back to make financial sense.
5 miles is not a long way. I live in a metro area, one of the highest traffic-wise, and I go that far, no problem.
The car - you have to do this thing called "work" and work at finding someone who has a car and share. Maybe a church has a van that does this kind of thing. I'm not saying it is the easiest thing in the world, but seriously, it is not that difficult to find out if someone has a car that can go to a grocery store, even a normal one, and carpool.
There's a lot of other things one can do to lift themselves out of poverty, that are not difficult.
5 miles is not a long way. I live in a metro area, one of the highest traffic-wise, and I go that far, no problem.
The car - you have to do this thing called "work" and work at finding someone who has a car and share. Maybe a church has a van that does this kind of thing. I'm not saying it is the easiest thing in the world, but seriously, it is not that difficult to find out if someone has a car that can go to a grocery store, even a normal one, and carpool.
There's a lot of other things one can do to lift themselves out of poverty, that are not difficult.
No one making $9/hr with a kid or two is going to be dishing out for a Costco membership and getting a volunteer to drive them around everywhere they need to go. There is no long-term savings and “financial sense”, it’s hand-to-mouth, sometimes shoplifting to survive. Have you executed this plan yourself? If not, I’d suggest appreciating the fact that it isn’t this easy or many people in poverty would have done it.
You are putting words in my mouth. I didn't say drive them everywhere, every day, available 24/7 every minute of the day.
Since you are taking that tack, I now know that you are not having this discussion in good faith.
>or many people in poverty would have done it.
Nope. And you are the 100% proof. Instead of asking me how, you attack me. Most people would willingly starve to death before doing something different. Trust me, I've tried to help many people out of a bad situation. I got emotionally invested in their situation - they came to me for help, not vice versa. And they just spent money like drunk sailors when they had a little bit.
Anyways, you are not discussing in good faith so I'm going to have to part ways with you here.
Since you are taking that tack, I now know that you are not having this discussion in good faith.
>or many people in poverty would have done it.
Nope. And you are the 100% proof. Instead of asking me how, you attack me. Most people would willingly starve to death before doing something different. Trust me, I've tried to help many people out of a bad situation. I got emotionally invested in their situation - they came to me for help, not vice versa. And they just spent money like drunk sailors when they had a little bit.
Anyways, you are not discussing in good faith so I'm going to have to part ways with you here.
“Choose to not be poor” is the thesis of your statement, whether you meant for it to be or not. It’s hard for that to be a good faith start to any discussion regarding poverty.
As a landlord of single family homes, I have to look at the detailed credit history of potential tenants. Before I even get to that stage I let them know the income requirements, etc. so usually we are looking at the top 3 applicants out of the 30 that applied.
With almost no exception, the renters make horrible financial decisions that set them up to work until they die. The average credit report I see is about a 500 and it's filled with missed payments, loans sent to collections, etc. Then, right at the top, in the last two or three months will be new loans for expensive cars and jewelery. It's mindboggling and sad. Most of my tenants have a nicer car than me (I own a pretty vanilla $30k sedan).
The renters usually come just above the 3x income to rent ratio and they never fail to pay their rent. But I don't really ever forsee them owning a home if they continue to make luxury purchases that prevent them from saving. The loan industry really enables a life of debt.
With almost no exception, the renters make horrible financial decisions that set them up to work until they die. The average credit report I see is about a 500 and it's filled with missed payments, loans sent to collections, etc. Then, right at the top, in the last two or three months will be new loans for expensive cars and jewelery. It's mindboggling and sad. Most of my tenants have a nicer car than me (I own a pretty vanilla $30k sedan).
The renters usually come just above the 3x income to rent ratio and they never fail to pay their rent. But I don't really ever forsee them owning a home if they continue to make luxury purchases that prevent them from saving. The loan industry really enables a life of debt.
> The loan industry really enables a life of debt.
It really does, and I've seen so many people fall into it, especially at the beginning of their career. Financial responsibility should be something taught early on at schools. With cryptos today, maybe even with the risks behind investing.
That said, I'm glad I live in the majority of countries where someone more privileged than me cannot judge my financial decisions to give me access to housing. I consider myself financially responsible, and credit scores aren't a thing here anyway, but I find it very disturbing.
It really does, and I've seen so many people fall into it, especially at the beginning of their career. Financial responsibility should be something taught early on at schools. With cryptos today, maybe even with the risks behind investing.
That said, I'm glad I live in the majority of countries where someone more privileged than me cannot judge my financial decisions to give me access to housing. I consider myself financially responsible, and credit scores aren't a thing here anyway, but I find it very disturbing.
What happens in your country if you move into a house and then just stop paying?
It is pretty unusual in most parts of the world for landlords to get access to one's credit records. Credit reporting is a pretty US-specific phenomenon, even if you're applying for a bank loan or a credit card.
You usually present proof of earnings and possibly references from previous landlords. And if you get unlucky - well, same as in the US, in many of the nicest markets, you're facing an uphill battle to evict people.
You usually present proof of earnings and possibly references from previous landlords. And if you get unlucky - well, same as in the US, in many of the nicest markets, you're facing an uphill battle to evict people.
I guess it depends per country. In Germany it has become common that the landlord will require a credit score (called Schufa) plus the things you mentioned (3 months of pay slips, references of balances paid from past landlord).
Strong data protection rules have made it that there is now a credit score report which is only giving you a pass/fail so that landlords don't know too many details.
Strong data protection rules have made it that there is now a credit score report which is only giving you a pass/fail so that landlords don't know too many details.
AFAICT Schufa is not like a US credit score. It's just OK/NOT OK, or a list of "infractions".
Which means if you always paid your stuff on time, a virtual +1 is the same as a +1000, and the visible result will just be "OK" and after a while the entries will age out if it was a "NOT OK"
Which means if you always paid your stuff on time, a virtual +1 is the same as a +1000, and the visible result will just be "OK" and after a while the entries will age out if it was a "NOT OK"
In the UK you invariably rent through an agent who has access to credit reporting, the cost of which is passed on to both you and the landlord. If you're self employed or a company director then there are a few other things you have to pay for, £45 to look at your balance sheet, for example, which is freely available to anyone else.
I know a few landlords and despite the efforts they take to find the perfect tenant, they all have tales to tell of people who passed all the tests with flying colours but soon turned out to be a costly disaster.
I know a few landlords and despite the efforts they take to find the perfect tenant, they all have tales to tell of people who passed all the tests with flying colours but soon turned out to be a costly disaster.
US has very strict non-discrimination laws in housing. Requesting credit reports is a way to circumvent those laws.
Standard practice in Germany, although the credit system here is a bit better than the US since it works by "demerits" rather than "building credit". Meaning you start out high, and only lose credit if you fail to make payments on a loan.
Also I think landlords can only see a high level summary and final score, not the details of your financial situation.
Also I think landlords can only see a high level summary and final score, not the details of your financial situation.
Completely normal in Canada also
One of three things happens in my country:
* A mafioso comes for a chat with the tenant and they move out. This rarely happens.
* The case is presented to court and they'll evict the tenant in about 2 months. This usually happens.
* The tenant has small children and is poor. The owner is fucked as the court won't do anything - the tenants children have a basic human right to a roof over their head. This also rarely happens, but when it does, the damages are huge. My great aunt lost 1-2 years of rent and about 10k in damages due to neglect this way.
Because of this, there are interviews for tenants. Mostly just a chat, but rarely you need to prove you're employed and provide bank statements.
* A mafioso comes for a chat with the tenant and they move out. This rarely happens.
* The case is presented to court and they'll evict the tenant in about 2 months. This usually happens.
* The tenant has small children and is poor. The owner is fucked as the court won't do anything - the tenants children have a basic human right to a roof over their head. This also rarely happens, but when it does, the damages are huge. My great aunt lost 1-2 years of rent and about 10k in damages due to neglect this way.
Because of this, there are interviews for tenants. Mostly just a chat, but rarely you need to prove you're employed and provide bank statements.
What happens in most cases is that rents go up, because landlords have to factor in this uncertainty. And the debt of the non paying tenants is collectivized.
Rental prices are based on the rental market price and then affect house prices. A landlord deciding they aren't going to make enough for their risk at the market rate and selling doesn't change much as whoever buys either stops renting or is going to rent it out.
>Financial responsibility should be something taught early on at schools.
100% guarantee that this does not matter one iota.
I've tried and tried to help so many people with their financial picture. You would have more luck talking to a brick wall.
People don't care. They just simply do not care.
This is because most people - maybe 95% - are ruled by their emotions rather than rationality. Or to put it more precisely, people make decisions based on emotions and then use their rational mind after they make their decision to rationalize their purchase.
Also, becoming financially responsible is just about the simplest thing to do, at least at the beginning stages. All it requires is addition and subtraction, mostly, which we learn in second grade or whenever it is. Second grade.
I remember opening my first savings and checking account when I was 15 years old (when you could do it yourself without parent's permission). The person who helped my took about 10 minutes to help me understand, that's all you need.
The internet is inundated with videos and classes on basic financial knowledge. I'm sure that I could go to Udemy and find 500 courses on basic financial training and pay $15 for it....hmmm, let me go check right now...ok, typed "personal finance" in the search and it came back with "6,496 results for “personal finance”"
People don't take those classes because they don't want to take them. Probably personal finance is one of the topics that is #1 for total courses available.
Honestly, personal finance is so easy. It is just about the easiest thing to do. Sure if you get into complicated stuff, if you have $200 million in the bank/assets/whatever, maybe it is hard. But for the general person, no, it is simple. And the part that someone doesn't get, there are a ton of videos and articles on that, too.
I have gotten exceptionally angry at some people because they were so broke and asked me for help. There I was, spending countless hours with them, doing what you said and educating them, and they go out and blow a HUGE chunk of their feeble savings on the stupidest shit. I got angry because I knew these people and got emotionally invested in helping them (I don't regret getting emotionally invested).
I don't help people anymore. It's an exercise in frustration and futility. People simply do notwant to be financially responsible...well, maybe in the 20/80 law, 20% are financially responsible. The other 80%...don't waste time on them.
Kind of a rant, but it still burns deep in my soul, because the people I tried to help are good people.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Pearls before swine.
100% guarantee that this does not matter one iota.
I've tried and tried to help so many people with their financial picture. You would have more luck talking to a brick wall.
People don't care. They just simply do not care.
This is because most people - maybe 95% - are ruled by their emotions rather than rationality. Or to put it more precisely, people make decisions based on emotions and then use their rational mind after they make their decision to rationalize their purchase.
Also, becoming financially responsible is just about the simplest thing to do, at least at the beginning stages. All it requires is addition and subtraction, mostly, which we learn in second grade or whenever it is. Second grade.
I remember opening my first savings and checking account when I was 15 years old (when you could do it yourself without parent's permission). The person who helped my took about 10 minutes to help me understand, that's all you need.
The internet is inundated with videos and classes on basic financial knowledge. I'm sure that I could go to Udemy and find 500 courses on basic financial training and pay $15 for it....hmmm, let me go check right now...ok, typed "personal finance" in the search and it came back with "6,496 results for “personal finance”"
People don't take those classes because they don't want to take them. Probably personal finance is one of the topics that is #1 for total courses available.
Honestly, personal finance is so easy. It is just about the easiest thing to do. Sure if you get into complicated stuff, if you have $200 million in the bank/assets/whatever, maybe it is hard. But for the general person, no, it is simple. And the part that someone doesn't get, there are a ton of videos and articles on that, too.
I have gotten exceptionally angry at some people because they were so broke and asked me for help. There I was, spending countless hours with them, doing what you said and educating them, and they go out and blow a HUGE chunk of their feeble savings on the stupidest shit. I got angry because I knew these people and got emotionally invested in helping them (I don't regret getting emotionally invested).
I don't help people anymore. It's an exercise in frustration and futility. People simply do notwant to be financially responsible...well, maybe in the 20/80 law, 20% are financially responsible. The other 80%...don't waste time on them.
Kind of a rant, but it still burns deep in my soul, because the people I tried to help are good people.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. Pearls before swine.
> All it requires is addition and subtraction, mostly, which we learn in second grade or whenever it is.
To be fair that's not quite true. For example credit cards go out of the way to make their interest and penalties algorithm obscure in order to try to lock people into paying interest forever.
To be fair that's not quite true. For example credit cards go out of the way to make their interest and penalties algorithm obscure in order to try to lock people into paying interest forever.
I understand what you're saying. However, I pretty much learned all there was to learn about them in 15 minutes when I got my first one. I read about them. I'm not the smartest person in the world, by far. If I can easily learn now, then anyone can learn this stuff on their own, in 15 minutes. It is NOT complicated.
Getting information is exceptionally easy, and a LOT easier than when I got my first one. I knew from when I got my first credit card that I had to pay off the balance in full, every month. That using a credit card should be the exact same as using cash. You never buy anything unless you actually have the cash first. Then you can use the credit card and pay it off at the end of the month. It's so easy to understand. It doesn't matter about credit cards companies and their obfuscation. I didn't learn it from credit card companies. I just learned it because it was easy to learn. How difficult is it? Don't use a credit care unless you have the cash first. You pay it off in full and you don't pay interest, whatever level it is - .01% or 40% - it does not matter what the interest rates are, unless you don't pay on time.
And the problem is that people don't care. They think emotionally, and don't give a crap about future ramifications.
This is my favorite video that explains it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ZJKN_5M44
Getting information is exceptionally easy, and a LOT easier than when I got my first one. I knew from when I got my first credit card that I had to pay off the balance in full, every month. That using a credit card should be the exact same as using cash. You never buy anything unless you actually have the cash first. Then you can use the credit card and pay it off at the end of the month. It's so easy to understand. It doesn't matter about credit cards companies and their obfuscation. I didn't learn it from credit card companies. I just learned it because it was easy to learn. How difficult is it? Don't use a credit care unless you have the cash first. You pay it off in full and you don't pay interest, whatever level it is - .01% or 40% - it does not matter what the interest rates are, unless you don't pay on time.
And the problem is that people don't care. They think emotionally, and don't give a crap about future ramifications.
This is my favorite video that explains it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3ZJKN_5M44
> It's so easy to understand.
But difficult to find. Do you know how to get out of paying interest on credit cards if you happen to be late for a payment once? Unless you've researched it, probably not. And it's unintuitive to have to research it because you'd think the answer is obvious (just pay it off) but it's not. Credit card companies count on people not noticing and then keep paying interest forever.
I know plenty smart people who just pay their credit card bill on autopay and don't examine every line item of the monthly statement. That seems crazy to me but it happens.
But difficult to find. Do you know how to get out of paying interest on credit cards if you happen to be late for a payment once? Unless you've researched it, probably not. And it's unintuitive to have to research it because you'd think the answer is obvious (just pay it off) but it's not. Credit card companies count on people not noticing and then keep paying interest forever.
I know plenty smart people who just pay their credit card bill on autopay and don't examine every line item of the monthly statement. That seems crazy to me but it happens.
I would suggest it's not the ease of access to data nor the ability to understand it. It's the constant bombardment of advertising.
42% of Americanas are overweight, do you think it's because we don't have the data or it's not available? No, it's that within this capitilistic society its more profitable for companies to sell sugar with a high markup and copyright protection, than a piece of fruit. If a banana was the most profitable food item to sell, there would be less obesity. At what % obesity or taking out loans or addiction do we shift from blaming individuals to blaming the scenario and the players creating that scenario often for profit?
42% of Americanas are overweight, do you think it's because we don't have the data or it's not available? No, it's that within this capitilistic society its more profitable for companies to sell sugar with a high markup and copyright protection, than a piece of fruit. If a banana was the most profitable food item to sell, there would be less obesity. At what % obesity or taking out loans or addiction do we shift from blaming individuals to blaming the scenario and the players creating that scenario often for profit?
If u treat ur credit card just like debit card u will never need to be end up in the situation in the first place. Don't spend what u didn't earn. And I use autopsy when I got my first credit card when I was still in school by just asking the bank for this service from instinct. I got plenty of discount and never needed paid interest once.
If u didn't earn it, it's not ur money. Don't spend what's not urs. I don't think that's hard to understand
If u didn't earn it, it's not ur money. Don't spend what's not urs. I don't think that's hard to understand
What about just paying the balance every month? 'Don't spend money that isn't in your pocket' seems pretty simple.
Then just use cash.
That is perfectly acceptable and the way to go.
There are reasons to use a credit card - you get purchase protection, for one. You also can build up credit if you want to buy a house. You need one to rent a car.
But really, while there might be other reasons, the only reason to get a good credit rating is to be able to buy a house. Everything else can be paid for in cash (check, online payment from your checking account, etc)
When you use a credit card, you should treat it exactly like cash. You should have cash in the bank before you purchase anything with a credit card, and then pay the entire credit card balance each and every month.
If someone has a problem with this and just can't do it, then they should not get a credit card at all. Credit cards are very dangerous technology if one can't control it. Just like fire - if you are not careful with it, you can set your house on fire.
There are reasons to use a credit card - you get purchase protection, for one. You also can build up credit if you want to buy a house. You need one to rent a car.
But really, while there might be other reasons, the only reason to get a good credit rating is to be able to buy a house. Everything else can be paid for in cash (check, online payment from your checking account, etc)
When you use a credit card, you should treat it exactly like cash. You should have cash in the bank before you purchase anything with a credit card, and then pay the entire credit card balance each and every month.
If someone has a problem with this and just can't do it, then they should not get a credit card at all. Credit cards are very dangerous technology if one can't control it. Just like fire - if you are not careful with it, you can set your house on fire.
Lets be clear here, by credit card I meant an actual credit card, not a debit card backed by a bank account, that is effectively cash.
You can do everything you listed without an actual CC, including rent a vehicle (I know, because I do it).
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/mortgages/how-to-buy-house-n...
And that's kind of the silliness of credit score, you can game it by never actually using credit.
You can do everything you listed without an actual CC, including rent a vehicle (I know, because I do it).
https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/mortgages/how-to-buy-house-n...
And that's kind of the silliness of credit score, you can game it by never actually using credit.
I don't disagree with what you say. I personally loathe credit cards and credit in general, and I personally don't use any type of credit. I pay for my cars in cash.
I don't think you get the same purchase protection with a debit card vs credit card.
As far as renting a vehicle, I've tried on a debit card and been denied. But that was quite a while ago so things could have changed, and I guess have as you have done it.
I don't think you get the same purchase protection with a debit card vs credit card.
As far as renting a vehicle, I've tried on a debit card and been denied. But that was quite a while ago so things could have changed, and I guess have as you have done it.
You still get protection from a debit card but the bank will cancel and re-issue since it's considered a point-of-sale. I've had to do it twice. Banks are required to do this due to consumer protection laws. I actually think the CC protection leads to more fraud, I've seen over and over people on this very website say things such as I'm being silly for how careful I am with my debit card because the CC company will just pay the fraud. I think it creates more risky behavior. It would be akin to wrecking into people out of spite because you have car insurance.
As for renting a vehicle, their requirements are usually a bit more stringent, things such as showing more documentation that I live where I say I live, they'll put a hold on a larger amount, but I've never been outright denied from renting a vehicle for having a debit card.
Of course, having said that, I was denied the last time I tried to rent a vehicle because they had started running credit checks and I have no credit. This despite the fact that I had been renting regularly from them for 7 or 8 years (a few times a year). Can you imagine thinking credit was a better proxy than your own records for determining someone's trustworthiness?
I've never liked rental car companies, they're all shitty in 1 way or another, but that for me was the last straw. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever rent a vehicle again.
Instead I went out and purchased a vehicle to do exactly what I was trying to do with the rental, I posted about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34099429#34114741
As for renting a vehicle, their requirements are usually a bit more stringent, things such as showing more documentation that I live where I say I live, they'll put a hold on a larger amount, but I've never been outright denied from renting a vehicle for having a debit card.
Of course, having said that, I was denied the last time I tried to rent a vehicle because they had started running credit checks and I have no credit. This despite the fact that I had been renting regularly from them for 7 or 8 years (a few times a year). Can you imagine thinking credit was a better proxy than your own records for determining someone's trustworthiness?
I've never liked rental car companies, they're all shitty in 1 way or another, but that for me was the last straw. It will be a cold day in hell before I ever rent a vehicle again.
Instead I went out and purchased a vehicle to do exactly what I was trying to do with the rental, I posted about it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34099429#34114741
[deleted]
It's only that simple before you actually own any resources. Even just having a tenant will make things more complicated than that.
You don't need to use credit cards.
I don't know how it is in the US, but in Japan, it's bonkers to the point that you can regularly hear/see ads on radio/TV for multiple lawyer offices that will help you recover money credit card companies have extorted you over the years.
"This is because most people - maybe 95% - are ruled by their emotions rather than rationality. Or to put it more precisely, people make decisions based on emotions and then use their rational mind after they make their decision to rationalize their purchase"
I thought there was pretty solid evidence it was 100% of us who acted like this. Just that for some our "emotional" decisions (or at least, our subconscious decision making processes) are better informed.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure one's financial sense is more guided by upbringing than genetics - though supposedly there's a lack of strong evidence that, for instance, whether you give your kids pocket money and encourage them to manage their own finances makes all that much difference, which always surprised me (and I did it anyway - kid's now got his own job and seems to manage money pretty well so far).
I thought there was pretty solid evidence it was 100% of us who acted like this. Just that for some our "emotional" decisions (or at least, our subconscious decision making processes) are better informed.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure one's financial sense is more guided by upbringing than genetics - though supposedly there's a lack of strong evidence that, for instance, whether you give your kids pocket money and encourage them to manage their own finances makes all that much difference, which always surprised me (and I did it anyway - kid's now got his own job and seems to manage money pretty well so far).
I couldn’t agree more. And you are right that it has nothing to do with peoples intelligence or education.
I also have given up helping people. It is a waste of time. Most people simply don’t think further ahead than today or tomorrow. And then they turn around and blame their financial difficulties on the system, politicians, greedy rich people, immigrants, white people etc. Anybody but themselves. consistently refusing to take responsibility for their own actions.
I also have given up helping people. It is a waste of time. Most people simply don’t think further ahead than today or tomorrow. And then they turn around and blame their financial difficulties on the system, politicians, greedy rich people, immigrants, white people etc. Anybody but themselves. consistently refusing to take responsibility for their own actions.
>And then they turn around and blame their financial difficulties on the system, politicians, greedy rich people, immigrants, white people etc. Anybody but themselves. consistently refusing to take responsibility for their own actions.
I didn't write this, but could have. 100% agree with what you are saying. The whole thing about "my school didn't teach it, that's why" just makes me so mad. It's just simply not that difficult.
I didn't write this, but could have. 100% agree with what you are saying. The whole thing about "my school didn't teach it, that's why" just makes me so mad. It's just simply not that difficult.
You don't know all their circumstances. Maybe they have a rich dad who will die soon and cover all their debts.
I'm not covering all the exceptions, because exceptions = exceptions.
But even for wealthy people, stupid financial decisions will sink their ship. Mike Tyson won $300 million (a third of a billion dollars) and blew it all. Johnny Depp made $500 million (half a billion) and almost went broke with profligate spending and poor financial decisions.
There's a well-known saying - Poor to rich to poor in 3 generations. This means someone comes to America without a penny and they put their kid through school and that child makes hundreds of millions, but that child's child grows up with no respect for money and is fritters it away, and they end up poor.
This is why people who win the lottery or pro athletes go broke after 3 years of winning the lottery or out of the sport - they blow money.
Saying something like "Maybe they have a rich dad who will die soon and cover all their debts" shows a complete and total lack of respect for money. Anyone who thinks this way has a great chance of blowing all the money, unless they change their thinking. Why would making crappy financial decisions just because you have a rich dad make any sort of logic at all? It makes no sense. Why would one make poor financial decisions, just because they are going to come into some money? All it means is that this same person is going to continue to make poor decisions when their rich dad dies, run out of money and then complain about it when they are broke. Happens all the time.
But even for wealthy people, stupid financial decisions will sink their ship. Mike Tyson won $300 million (a third of a billion dollars) and blew it all. Johnny Depp made $500 million (half a billion) and almost went broke with profligate spending and poor financial decisions.
There's a well-known saying - Poor to rich to poor in 3 generations. This means someone comes to America without a penny and they put their kid through school and that child makes hundreds of millions, but that child's child grows up with no respect for money and is fritters it away, and they end up poor.
This is why people who win the lottery or pro athletes go broke after 3 years of winning the lottery or out of the sport - they blow money.
Saying something like "Maybe they have a rich dad who will die soon and cover all their debts" shows a complete and total lack of respect for money. Anyone who thinks this way has a great chance of blowing all the money, unless they change their thinking. Why would making crappy financial decisions just because you have a rich dad make any sort of logic at all? It makes no sense. Why would one make poor financial decisions, just because they are going to come into some money? All it means is that this same person is going to continue to make poor decisions when their rich dad dies, run out of money and then complain about it when they are broke. Happens all the time.
Inheritance is not an exception. Quick Bing search shows that "68% of millennials expect an inheritance". So that might be the reason behind their behavior that you are not aware of.
Your comment blew my mind, and I just realized something. Thank you.
If 68% of the millennials expect an inheritance, how much do they expect to get? Are they making their financial decision based on getting mom and dad's house? Have they considered that this house might be used to pay for mom's and dad's care in their last years? Did they think about the fact that they might get the money only once they at 40 or 50 year's old? What if they end up with $2300 and a dinnerware set after a lifetime of poor financial decisions--I imagine most inheritances are not 7 figure affairs.
I'm worried if this is truly the case.
If 68% of the millennials expect an inheritance, how much do they expect to get? Are they making their financial decision based on getting mom and dad's house? Have they considered that this house might be used to pay for mom's and dad's care in their last years? Did they think about the fact that they might get the money only once they at 40 or 50 year's old? What if they end up with $2300 and a dinnerware set after a lifetime of poor financial decisions--I imagine most inheritances are not 7 figure affairs.
I'm worried if this is truly the case.
Don't think anyone really makes cold calculations decades ahead, it's just some warm fuzzy feeling in the back of their minds that mommy and daddy will eventually straight the things up, as they always did)
It's like...you read my first sentence and didn't read anything after that. Good job, well done.
[deleted]
> the renters make horrible financial decisions that set them up to work until they die.
Did you read the article? Genuine question. Because you seem to be completely missing the main point it's making, it's not exactly lacking in examples.
Did you read the article? Genuine question. Because you seem to be completely missing the main point it's making, it's not exactly lacking in examples.
Not GP but these comments and the article are not unrelated.
TFA says amortized cost of things is lower when you have access to cash, or cheap credit. Buying in bulk in large shops is cheaper than buying small amounts at local shops. Proper renting is cheaper than weekly-billed accomodation.
But then GP is saying, the poor often have better access to credit than it might seem, it just goes to things that don't improve their financial situation. Nice cars and jewelry for instance.
I don't really know and suspect both are true to an extent, but chipping in since poverty is fascinating to me and I don't fully understand it (I come from and remain in a modest background btw). Sometimes it's just a lack of cash but often it seems not as simple as that.
TFA says amortized cost of things is lower when you have access to cash, or cheap credit. Buying in bulk in large shops is cheaper than buying small amounts at local shops. Proper renting is cheaper than weekly-billed accomodation.
But then GP is saying, the poor often have better access to credit than it might seem, it just goes to things that don't improve their financial situation. Nice cars and jewelry for instance.
I don't really know and suspect both are true to an extent, but chipping in since poverty is fascinating to me and I don't fully understand it (I come from and remain in a modest background btw). Sometimes it's just a lack of cash but often it seems not as simple as that.
> Nice cars and jewelry for instance. I don't really know and suspect both are true to an extent
Yes, it probably is a bit of both, but the GP seems biased towards colouring everyone with the caricature of being in a financial position purely of their own making. It seems incredibly cliche like shouting "get a job you lazy bum" and ignoring any systemic factors and other forces at play as outlines in this article.
I personally have been in situations very close to the threshold of not being able to make rent in the past, and I'm very very far from a "consumer". When the window of time in which you have to make ends meet is on the order of days or weeks it's impossible to make long term optimal financial decisions, not merely because of stress, but because in the short term other people need your money, like this unempathetic landlord who apparently owns many properties.
Yes, it probably is a bit of both, but the GP seems biased towards colouring everyone with the caricature of being in a financial position purely of their own making. It seems incredibly cliche like shouting "get a job you lazy bum" and ignoring any systemic factors and other forces at play as outlines in this article.
I personally have been in situations very close to the threshold of not being able to make rent in the past, and I'm very very far from a "consumer". When the window of time in which you have to make ends meet is on the order of days or weeks it's impossible to make long term optimal financial decisions, not merely because of stress, but because in the short term other people need your money, like this unempathetic landlord who apparently owns many properties.
If they're unrelated then maybe they should have posted in a different thread with a different article.
He is saying they are not unrelated
Other factors in fairness are kids and medical stuff. I spent 3k fixing up a wonderful 3.5k used car - have had it for years - runs great even though 16 years old. I do want / need to buy a new car but prices seem crazy to me! Kia soul maybe as a cheap car? Everything else has puffed up to high 20s and 30s (and far far higher) - this old car costs nothing to insure - and Kia seems to have waiting lists around the block for warranty work. My old car I can have anyone work in it without warranty issues.
It made me wonder if all the required features and electronics are puffing up costs a bit?
It made me wonder if all the required features and electronics are puffing up costs a bit?
I grew up around a lot of poor people and I saw much of the same.
I wish this article broke down the "food" and "clothing" categories into the specific products they are purchasing.
A little anecdata:
These families would buy brand-name sneakers and jeans for their kids, whichever brand was popular that year, whereas I was on year two of home-sewn or no-brand cheap jeans. I'd go visit friends and see boxes of brand-name Lucky Charms, Apple Jacks, etc, and be envious versus the bulk oatmeal I choked down every morning. Their mothers were getting their "nails did" regularly whilst mine had perpetual dishwater hands.
My parents didn't make much money, but they knew how to spend it wisely. Other poor families, not so much.
Another anecdata:
My father-in-law grew up absolutely dirt poor (far far worse than my parents), but did reasonably well for himself over time. He still has significant debt and inability to manage his money because he has to buy luxury goods regularly as some sort of compensatory mechanism to ensure that other people would never see him to be poor.
At the end of the day, when I look at poor people's spending habits, I see the same thing you do: they are hooked on unnecessary spending. I suspect there is something in the human psyche that makes poor people try to compensate for it by spending to not appear poor, thus exacerbating the cycle.
It's a largely self-inflicted problem.
I wish this article broke down the "food" and "clothing" categories into the specific products they are purchasing.
A little anecdata:
These families would buy brand-name sneakers and jeans for their kids, whichever brand was popular that year, whereas I was on year two of home-sewn or no-brand cheap jeans. I'd go visit friends and see boxes of brand-name Lucky Charms, Apple Jacks, etc, and be envious versus the bulk oatmeal I choked down every morning. Their mothers were getting their "nails did" regularly whilst mine had perpetual dishwater hands.
My parents didn't make much money, but they knew how to spend it wisely. Other poor families, not so much.
Another anecdata:
My father-in-law grew up absolutely dirt poor (far far worse than my parents), but did reasonably well for himself over time. He still has significant debt and inability to manage his money because he has to buy luxury goods regularly as some sort of compensatory mechanism to ensure that other people would never see him to be poor.
At the end of the day, when I look at poor people's spending habits, I see the same thing you do: they are hooked on unnecessary spending. I suspect there is something in the human psyche that makes poor people try to compensate for it by spending to not appear poor, thus exacerbating the cycle.
It's a largely self-inflicted problem.
Consider that some of those appearances aren't just for social circles but for job status. As someone in startup software (now remote!) my wardrobe choices are far broader than someone working in service who may be expected to wear and use the products they're selling.
Why do you have to look at their credit history before allowing someone to rent from you? Shouldn't their income be all you need? Whether you realize it or not, you are a part of the system that enables a life of debt. Owning a home allows people to build equity and sets a foundation for a stable life. By being a land lord, you are preventing people from buying and building equity. Instead their hard earned money goes right into your pocket.
Believe it or not, people exist who don't want to own a home and would rather rent. There are also plenty of times where it is a better idea to rent than buy a home- plenty of people who bought right before a housing market crash then needed to move for a job can attest to that.
Generally, if you aren't sure that you're going to stay in a home for several years, you're not getting any equity back out if you need to sell... Especially if you had to do any big repairs or maintenance.
Landlords are a necessary part of a functioning society.
Landlords are a necessary part of a functioning society.
There are incentives were produced which put people who didn't buy into significant disadvantage:
- refinancing on low interest
- significant leveraged appreciation of housing pricing because of fiscal policies
- refinancing on low interest
- significant leveraged appreciation of housing pricing because of fiscal policies
imagine you lived in a world where roads were all private and it was just how things are done that you pay fees to use them, fees set by the roadlords to keep them confortable. you'd say roadlords are a necessary part of a functioning society, but you'd be wrong, wouldn't you? you'd be confusing how things are with how they must stay.
It's an interesting point. There are private roads, and most that I've used have been on par with public roads of equivalent traffic patterns (mostly because people who put in private roads are the same ones hired by the government to put in public ones).
What's more interesting is if you take that extreme and flip it back to housing.
Imagine a world where:
You are banned from owning land or housing. There's a variety of options to live in, but limited by what the government decides is fitting. Then, a popular movement within government decides that a particular type of housing is not appropriate for society, and starts destroying all of those houses. Instead, they decree, the best and only type of housing that should be available are communes where everyone gets a bed but zero privacy. You're not allowed your own four walls, you have to share space with everyone.
It's so much more efficient! they decree.
Well, that's exactly what is starting to happen to roads in some major cities. Parking spaces are being removed in favor of expanding public transportation. Entire blocks are being declared off-limits to private cars to make them "walkable".
I'm not really advocating one way or the other here- my point is that it's kindof silly to compare roads and housing at such extremes, because the benefits and consequences of various polices are not directly analogous to each other.
What's more interesting is if you take that extreme and flip it back to housing.
Imagine a world where:
You are banned from owning land or housing. There's a variety of options to live in, but limited by what the government decides is fitting. Then, a popular movement within government decides that a particular type of housing is not appropriate for society, and starts destroying all of those houses. Instead, they decree, the best and only type of housing that should be available are communes where everyone gets a bed but zero privacy. You're not allowed your own four walls, you have to share space with everyone.
It's so much more efficient! they decree.
Well, that's exactly what is starting to happen to roads in some major cities. Parking spaces are being removed in favor of expanding public transportation. Entire blocks are being declared off-limits to private cars to make them "walkable".
I'm not really advocating one way or the other here- my point is that it's kindof silly to compare roads and housing at such extremes, because the benefits and consequences of various polices are not directly analogous to each other.
>you'd say roadlords are a necessary part of a functioning society, but you'd be wrong, wouldn't you?
Not really, given that something is apparently different about this world such that the existence of roadlords represents a stable equilibrium.
Not really, given that something is apparently different about this world such that the existence of roadlords represents a stable equilibrium.
[deleted]
> Shouldn’t their income be all you need?
Sometimes people can pay but choose not to. Ability to pay is necessary but not sufficient. Demonstrating a proven track record of financial responsibility makes a landlord much more willing to lease on favorable terms.
> By being a land lord, you are preventing people from buying and building equity.
Landlords increase the supply of housing by improving and renovating older structures or converting them into residential use.
A landlord has the exact same costs as a homeowner. He has a mortgage, property taxes, insurance, repairs, etc. Because he wants to operate at a profit he needs to keep those costs low, and a lot of landlords do that by purchasing distressed properties at lower prices, improving them, and leasing them profitably.
Alternatively a landlord can lease to tenants who have poor credit and can’t obtain a mortgage to buy a house. Those tenants would probably be homeless if it weren’t for landlords willing to risk leasing to them. No bank will lend $300k to those tenants so they can purchase the houses they would otherwise be renting. Those landlords are charging higher rents commensurate with the higher nonpayment risk inherent in tenants with low credit scores.
Generally the only thing preventing tenants with poor credit from building home equity is their poor financial decisions.
Sometimes people can pay but choose not to. Ability to pay is necessary but not sufficient. Demonstrating a proven track record of financial responsibility makes a landlord much more willing to lease on favorable terms.
> By being a land lord, you are preventing people from buying and building equity.
Landlords increase the supply of housing by improving and renovating older structures or converting them into residential use.
A landlord has the exact same costs as a homeowner. He has a mortgage, property taxes, insurance, repairs, etc. Because he wants to operate at a profit he needs to keep those costs low, and a lot of landlords do that by purchasing distressed properties at lower prices, improving them, and leasing them profitably.
Alternatively a landlord can lease to tenants who have poor credit and can’t obtain a mortgage to buy a house. Those tenants would probably be homeless if it weren’t for landlords willing to risk leasing to them. No bank will lend $300k to those tenants so they can purchase the houses they would otherwise be renting. Those landlords are charging higher rents commensurate with the higher nonpayment risk inherent in tenants with low credit scores.
Generally the only thing preventing tenants with poor credit from building home equity is their poor financial decisions.
A landlord performing repairs is a good joke.
> Demonstrating a proven track record of financial responsibility
credit is a record of your debt load, nothing else, but landlords use it as a proxy.
I have no credit and had to laugh when I realized no one would rent to me despite my 6-figure income. I had to start vetting THEM to see if it was a waste of time or not.
These kinds of things sound good in your head, but they're just not reality.
credit is a record of your debt load, nothing else, but landlords use it as a proxy.
I have no credit and had to laugh when I realized no one would rent to me despite my 6-figure income. I had to start vetting THEM to see if it was a waste of time or not.
These kinds of things sound good in your head, but they're just not reality.
Credit allows to get a probability of how likely it is payments get done. Landlords use it to get a probability of how likely payments will be.
In your case, they don't have your credit, so they obtain the probability through other variables, like your income. Most likely they'll assign a high probability to you paying, but the confidence interval mat be too big for their liking.
Obviously credit history doesn't give zero information, which is implied in this thread several times.
In your case, they don't have your credit, so they obtain the probability through other variables, like your income. Most likely they'll assign a high probability to you paying, but the confidence interval mat be too big for their liking.
Obviously credit history doesn't give zero information, which is implied in this thread several times.
I've never been late on rent since I started renting and I have no credit. Not even a little, I literally have no credit and I'm in my 40's.
Sure, but we're talking statistics here and you're just a data point.
> By being a land lord, you are preventing people from buying and building equity. Instead their hard earned money goes right into your pocket.
What? This is like arguing that someone who owns a car and is a taxi driver is “preventing people from buying” and “instead their hard earned money goes right into your pocket”.
One person being a landlord does nothing to prevent others from owning property. Housing is no more a scarce resource than cars are. Or, at least, that would be true if the US weren’t covered in laws preventing new housing. There’s your actual bogeyman.
What? This is like arguing that someone who owns a car and is a taxi driver is “preventing people from buying” and “instead their hard earned money goes right into your pocket”.
One person being a landlord does nothing to prevent others from owning property. Housing is no more a scarce resource than cars are. Or, at least, that would be true if the US weren’t covered in laws preventing new housing. There’s your actual bogeyman.
> One person being a landlord does nothing to prevent others from owning property.
In the sense that land ownership is zero sum, yes it does.
> Housing is no more a scarce resource than cars are.
That’s simply not true. In any given market, there’s a limited supply of housing, and it’s much more inelastic than the supply of cars.
> Or, at least, that would be true if the US weren’t covered in laws preventing new housing. There’s your actual bogeyman.
Who do you think is lobbying for these laws? I’ll give you a hint: it’s the people whose property gains value if there’s less to go around.
In the sense that land ownership is zero sum, yes it does.
> Housing is no more a scarce resource than cars are.
That’s simply not true. In any given market, there’s a limited supply of housing, and it’s much more inelastic than the supply of cars.
> Or, at least, that would be true if the US weren’t covered in laws preventing new housing. There’s your actual bogeyman.
Who do you think is lobbying for these laws? I’ll give you a hint: it’s the people whose property gains value if there’s less to go around.
Oh if only you were right — plenty of renters also vote to maintain zoning, fearing that their neighborhoods will otherwise change for the worse, and rent control guarantees they can’t afford to move.
Sure, land is limited. But housing is not 1:1 with land! Housing supply is inelastic, but population growth is also slow, and it’s absolutely not a lack of construction capacity that prevents new housing. It’s inelastic because our laws make it so.
The folks lobbying for these laws are interest groups like any other. The problem is they’ve also suckered too many others in to the belief system that neighborhoods must never change or grow.
Sure, land is limited. But housing is not 1:1 with land! Housing supply is inelastic, but population growth is also slow, and it’s absolutely not a lack of construction capacity that prevents new housing. It’s inelastic because our laws make it so.
The folks lobbying for these laws are interest groups like any other. The problem is they’ve also suckered too many others in to the belief system that neighborhoods must never change or grow.
Land ownership is not the constraint to housing that you think it is.
I can buy thousands of square meters of land that is physically able to support housing for a negligible amount of money.
The land is useless to me because construction is expensive (as a result of regulatory requirements) and I'm not legally allowed to build there (also due to regulatory requirements).
I can buy thousands of square meters of land that is physically able to support housing for a negligible amount of money.
The land is useless to me because construction is expensive (as a result of regulatory requirements) and I'm not legally allowed to build there (also due to regulatory requirements).
> In the sense that land ownership is zero sum, yes it does.
Blame that on zoning laws + People moving into big cities. Just supply and demand, At least in Urban areas with that problem .
> That’s simply not true. In any given market, there’s a limited supply of housing, and it’s much more inelastic than the supply of cars
Is that the fault of humans wanting to live in close proximity with other humans? maybe, there is an ample amount of land anywhere between cities with an inelastic supply of housing.
> Who do you think is lobbying for these laws? I’ll give you a hint: it’s the people whose property gains value if there’s less to go around.
Moloch is a problem.
> That’s simply not true. In any given market, there’s a limited supply of housing, and it’s much more inelastic than the supply of cars
Is that the fault of humans wanting to live in close proximity with other humans? maybe, there is an ample amount of land anywhere between cities with an inelastic supply of housing.
> Who do you think is lobbying for these laws? I’ll give you a hint: it’s the people whose property gains value if there’s less to go around.
Moloch is a problem.
it's not zero sum. people are dumb unfortunately and that makes building new housing hard nowadays.
but it's not a human universal. incentives matter, look at China, for example.
in the US renters outnumber landlords in many cities, yet they too mostly voted for stagnation.
but it's not a human universal. incentives matter, look at China, for example.
in the US renters outnumber landlords in many cities, yet they too mostly voted for stagnation.
> Why do you have to look at their credit history before allowing someone to rent from you? Shouldn't their income be all you need?
Am I missing something obvious? Isn't it just because not everyone who misses payments is low-income?
Am I missing something obvious? Isn't it just because not everyone who misses payments is low-income?
The rest of the comment makes it pretty clear why income is not the whole story. Overextending finances can happen in any income bracket.
Renting is a service that is available to everyone, not just those who can’t afford houses. Most people who buy houses previously rented. Gotta live somewhere when you save up.
Renting is a service that is available to everyone, not just those who can’t afford houses. Most people who buy houses previously rented. Gotta live somewhere when you save up.
> Renting is a service that is available to everyone
Go try to rent a decent place with no credit history and then tell me you still have that opinion.
Go try to rent a decent place with no credit history and then tell me you still have that opinion.
The rest of my sentence is important to the meaning of my statement. I am saying that people who are responsible with their finances can and do also rent.
and I'm saying it's not true that it's available to everyone, certainly not in practice.
I am aware. You are accusing me of using "everyone" in a different context than I used it above. Obviously I am aware, for instance, that homeless people exist.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize.
I don’t think you made the comment you thought you made. If you’re caveating “everyone” to mean something other than every single person, you should state those caveats.
What makes all of this worse is that I didn't respond because I thought the other poster was claiming that people who can't afford rent won't get rented to, of course that's true.
I responded because there are people who CAN rent who will not be rented to (or will find it very difficult to) because they have little to no credit history, or have a bad credit history.
There are other issues I didn't mention, such as taking a landlord or property manager to court. That can absolutely get you black balled both locally and somewhat nationally and not because someone is maintaining a secret list that everyone is watching, but because a large number of landlords and property manages are farming out SaaS services for background checking to these services and a large part of that is checking public court records. In light of that environment, taking your landlord to court is going to have a major effect on your ability to rent in the future.
Basically, the other poster was just not right and whinging about HN guidelines doesn't change that.
I responded because there are people who CAN rent who will not be rented to (or will find it very difficult to) because they have little to no credit history, or have a bad credit history.
There are other issues I didn't mention, such as taking a landlord or property manager to court. That can absolutely get you black balled both locally and somewhat nationally and not because someone is maintaining a secret list that everyone is watching, but because a large number of landlords and property manages are farming out SaaS services for background checking to these services and a large part of that is checking public court records. In light of that environment, taking your landlord to court is going to have a major effect on your ability to rent in the future.
Basically, the other poster was just not right and whinging about HN guidelines doesn't change that.
In some other countries they don't check or care about credit history, only that the salary is able to cover the rent.
For better or worse, real estate is one of the earliest investment opportunities available for the most Americans. The ROI is easy to understand and capital is much easier to access compared to VC, bespoke business loans, etc. The industry is large and competitive, not investing or participating in the market isn't going to actually change housing affordability. Almost everyone except the poor/working class is invested in real estate directly or indirectly.
Most importantly, only residents vote in local elections and it's local policy that has the largest impact on housing supply and renter protections. Market's are quick to react to policy changes but policy has to actually change - advocating for individual actors to behave against the market is, on average, not going to actually help the people you aim to help... instead other actors (and perhaps actors biased to even more amoral decision making) will take advantage.
Most importantly, only residents vote in local elections and it's local policy that has the largest impact on housing supply and renter protections. Market's are quick to react to policy changes but policy has to actually change - advocating for individual actors to behave against the market is, on average, not going to actually help the people you aim to help... instead other actors (and perhaps actors biased to even more amoral decision making) will take advantage.
hailing housing as an investment leads to the hazard of too big to fail, when too many people have it as their only asset.
there are regional trends that can make it a great investment, and the secular trend of urbanization (and the growing US population, and growing economy) also help, but almost all of the growth in prices is due to very harmful shortsighted policy, and the circumstance of the move to near zero interest rate.
there are regional trends that can make it a great investment, and the secular trend of urbanization (and the growing US population, and growing economy) also help, but almost all of the growth in prices is due to very harmful shortsighted policy, and the circumstance of the move to near zero interest rate.
I completely agree. It's just we are already at the point of it being too big to fail - you can just look at the housing market during COVID compared to 2008 to see that we've doubled down on housing as a speculative asset.
The landlord is effectively a lender, or at least a rusk-taking intermediary. They buy the house with outright cash or a mortgage backed by good credit. Their risk is that they don't find tenants, can't receive rent, or the house price goes down.
It's effectively shielding the tenant from the financial risks of house ownership, for a price.
I also agree it's unfair to the poor that renting is more expensive long-term when they can't afford to buy, but I don't think it's the landlords fault.
It's effectively shielding the tenant from the financial risks of house ownership, for a price.
I also agree it's unfair to the poor that renting is more expensive long-term when they can't afford to buy, but I don't think it's the landlords fault.
What would also shield a poorer person from the risks of house ownership is if houses werent so expensive in the first place.
Your judgement seems misguided towards someone that may have been incentivized to take risk on an investment property, or someone that bought a home and had to move due to any number of circumstances, but was not able to sell.
I agree that homeownership is becoming less and less viable for the middle class and below due to a lot of speculation that has entered the market in the past few years, and this should be nipped in the bud with regulation. But without knowing much about OP, it feels like an over reach to make assumptions that they are the problem.
On the credit history, I don't know if you have rented out a place before(sounds like maybe not), if you get a bad apple as a renter...everything gets massively more complicated and remedying the situation is not a clean maneuver. You wouldn't buy a vehicle off one picture, so why would someone rent out something that is 10-20x more valuable without proper due diligence?
I agree that homeownership is becoming less and less viable for the middle class and below due to a lot of speculation that has entered the market in the past few years, and this should be nipped in the bud with regulation. But without knowing much about OP, it feels like an over reach to make assumptions that they are the problem.
On the credit history, I don't know if you have rented out a place before(sounds like maybe not), if you get a bad apple as a renter...everything gets massively more complicated and remedying the situation is not a clean maneuver. You wouldn't buy a vehicle off one picture, so why would someone rent out something that is 10-20x more valuable without proper due diligence?
Income is evidence of a person's ability to pay. Credit history is evidence of a person's willingness to pay. I would expect a positive correlation between the two but relying on that correlation seems risky.
Your comment is confusing.
Are you concerned that the parent is using a credit history to make a decision who to rent to?
Or are you concerned that by being a landlord the parent is somehow preventing people from buying a house?
I can see each being a concern. However, phrased as it is, it sounds like an incoherent emotional rant that is hard to respond to.
Are you concerned that the parent is using a credit history to make a decision who to rent to?
Or are you concerned that by being a landlord the parent is somehow preventing people from buying a house?
I can see each being a concern. However, phrased as it is, it sounds like an incoherent emotional rant that is hard to respond to.
>>By being a land lord, you are preventing people from buying and building equity.
Yeah me going to the gym, reading, and eating healthy is the reason why so many others are obese and unread.
>>Instead their hard earned money goes right into your pocket.
What is the connection between X being a landlord and Y not being allowed to be a landlord?
Yeah me going to the gym, reading, and eating healthy is the reason why so many others are obese and unread.
>>Instead their hard earned money goes right into your pocket.
What is the connection between X being a landlord and Y not being allowed to be a landlord?
>Yeah me going to the gym, reading, and eating healthy is the reason why so many others are obese and unread.
Not OP, but do you actually think those situations are analogous? This feels like either a strawman or arguing in bad faith.
>What is the connection between X being a landlord and Y not being allowed to be a landlord?
The more houses being purchased for rental, the fewer that are available for individual ownership and landlords typically own more than one home. Additionally and probabaly more importantly, by using housing as an investment vehicle, it pits people with excess money to invest against people who may only have enough money for basic essentials in bidding for a house. This is all exacerbated further when you take note of the fact that companies/invesment funds are also buying up homes and becoming 'landlords'.
Not OP, but do you actually think those situations are analogous? This feels like either a strawman or arguing in bad faith.
>What is the connection between X being a landlord and Y not being allowed to be a landlord?
The more houses being purchased for rental, the fewer that are available for individual ownership and landlords typically own more than one home. Additionally and probabaly more importantly, by using housing as an investment vehicle, it pits people with excess money to invest against people who may only have enough money for basic essentials in bidding for a house. This is all exacerbated further when you take note of the fact that companies/invesment funds are also buying up homes and becoming 'landlords'.
>>Not OP, but do you actually think those situations are analogous? This feels like either a strawman or arguing in bad faith.
Yes, in fact it is as true as it gets. The thing is lots of things reduce to individual agency and responsibility and regardless one agrees with it or not, you are always in total ownership of any situation. Sure you can't buy a million dollar mansion inside a horse ranch. But there's always something you can buy.
There's always a minimal level of bootstrap anybody can start with. But you have to be very serious, very failure immune and be ok with taking multiple shots at the problem.
>>The more houses being purchased for rental, the fewer that are available for individual ownership and landlords typically own more than one home.
Have never ever seen homes go like hot cakes. You have time, you have lots of time. The question here really is do you want to buy a home? If yes, there is always something you can do about it. You might not get a million dollar home, but theres always something you can buy.
Yes, in fact it is as true as it gets. The thing is lots of things reduce to individual agency and responsibility and regardless one agrees with it or not, you are always in total ownership of any situation. Sure you can't buy a million dollar mansion inside a horse ranch. But there's always something you can buy.
There's always a minimal level of bootstrap anybody can start with. But you have to be very serious, very failure immune and be ok with taking multiple shots at the problem.
>>The more houses being purchased for rental, the fewer that are available for individual ownership and landlords typically own more than one home.
Have never ever seen homes go like hot cakes. You have time, you have lots of time. The question here really is do you want to buy a home? If yes, there is always something you can do about it. You might not get a million dollar home, but theres always something you can buy.
>Have never ever seen homes go like hot cakes.
Take a look at toronto or vancouver, to name a couple places in my country where no one has had to sell at or below sane asking prices for years.
>You have time, you have lots of time. The question here really is do you want to buy a home? If yes, there is always something you can do about it. You might not get a million dollar home, but theres always something you can buy.
You were originally saying that landlords buying up houses doesn't affect other people being able to buy a house. Sure, if we move the goalposts far enough and say 'it doesn't stop you from erecting 4 walls and a roof somewhere in the world', you're right. However, if you want a house anywhere near where it's likely to be of practical use, there is no question that landlords/investors scooping up houses absolutely affects those who need a house NOW and who are without the capital to compete against millionaires with multiple properties.
Also, if you say I/we 'have lots of time', that's implying that there's no marginal cost to having to rent for all that time. If that were the case all the time, why would anyone bother buying a house?
Take a look at toronto or vancouver, to name a couple places in my country where no one has had to sell at or below sane asking prices for years.
>You have time, you have lots of time. The question here really is do you want to buy a home? If yes, there is always something you can do about it. You might not get a million dollar home, but theres always something you can buy.
You were originally saying that landlords buying up houses doesn't affect other people being able to buy a house. Sure, if we move the goalposts far enough and say 'it doesn't stop you from erecting 4 walls and a roof somewhere in the world', you're right. However, if you want a house anywhere near where it's likely to be of practical use, there is no question that landlords/investors scooping up houses absolutely affects those who need a house NOW and who are without the capital to compete against millionaires with multiple properties.
Also, if you say I/we 'have lots of time', that's implying that there's no marginal cost to having to rent for all that time. If that were the case all the time, why would anyone bother buying a house?
Whatever rocks your boat buddy.
Since you already believe you can't buy a home, it might end up becoming a self full-filling prophecy.
Since you already believe you can't buy a home, it might end up becoming a self full-filling prophecy.
If you look at housing as equity why do you have problems with renting it out?
it's hard to evict people. missed payments means loss of $
you make your living off them, so you have a psychlogical incentive to see them in a certain way.
> the renters make horrible financial decisions that set them up to work until they die
The point of this article is that those "horrible financial decisions" aren't mistakes, they are costs of living that are imposed upon those that are already struggling. Sometimes it may be irresponsibility, other times it is an inevitability, a distinction that you truly cant discern from the outside. It's possible that splurging on a car might be a long term benefit, maybe fuel efficiency or maintainence costs are money savers after the initial buy in. You don't know the personal calculus of each decision so maybe don't assign motive to what renters are doing under the heel of capitalism.
And it turns out, these people need a roof over their heads, which you could provide at a cheaper cost if you chose to but instead you take a chunk of their paycheck each month as your personal profit. Like you could help people. You could treat housing as a necessary resource and not a commodity. Overnight you can alleviate people's debt if you wanted to.
The point of this article is that those "horrible financial decisions" aren't mistakes, they are costs of living that are imposed upon those that are already struggling. Sometimes it may be irresponsibility, other times it is an inevitability, a distinction that you truly cant discern from the outside. It's possible that splurging on a car might be a long term benefit, maybe fuel efficiency or maintainence costs are money savers after the initial buy in. You don't know the personal calculus of each decision so maybe don't assign motive to what renters are doing under the heel of capitalism.
And it turns out, these people need a roof over their heads, which you could provide at a cheaper cost if you chose to but instead you take a chunk of their paycheck each month as your personal profit. Like you could help people. You could treat housing as a necessary resource and not a commodity. Overnight you can alleviate people's debt if you wanted to.
very fair, but from my handful of observations I've seen people chase brand name over the quality benefits a brand carries (e.g. maintenance, efficiency) to consider
[deleted]
You're not renting to poor people ... and you're rationalizing.
poor people don't have 3x income to rent ratio, middle class people do. poor people don't drive $30k+ vehicles, middle class people do.
The only thing you got right is that poor people make bad financial decisions. Often times they're forced into it, although not nearly always. Poor people trade time for money.
People are often predatory towards the poor because there's a combination of money being there but not having enough to protect yourself from the bullshit.
Personally, the one group of people I have absolutely no sympathy for are landlords, and I say this as someone with a 6-figure income who rents. I grew up dirt poor, to the point of being homeless.
And the number of times I've had a landlord try to pull some shit only to be shocked when my lawyer got in touch is entirely too damned high. Only for the problem to magically go away.
And why? Because you would never imagine my resources by looking at me and how I live. landlords do this shit as a matter of course and only back off when they realize not only CAN you defend yourself, but you WILL defend yourself.
Think about it like this.
There are laws on the books that very explicitly state if a landlord makes a persons property inaccessible before they're legally required to move, that person can sue them for the value of everything lost.
1. How do you think I know that (they gave away 2 of my pets, reptiles)?
2. Why did that law need to be passed?
---
I'm sure there are landlords that act in good faith as decent human beings, but it seems as if there's something unique about landlords that makes it difficult. In all the time I've been renting I've met a single decent property manager, and no decent land lords.
poor people don't have 3x income to rent ratio, middle class people do. poor people don't drive $30k+ vehicles, middle class people do.
The only thing you got right is that poor people make bad financial decisions. Often times they're forced into it, although not nearly always. Poor people trade time for money.
People are often predatory towards the poor because there's a combination of money being there but not having enough to protect yourself from the bullshit.
Personally, the one group of people I have absolutely no sympathy for are landlords, and I say this as someone with a 6-figure income who rents. I grew up dirt poor, to the point of being homeless.
And the number of times I've had a landlord try to pull some shit only to be shocked when my lawyer got in touch is entirely too damned high. Only for the problem to magically go away.
And why? Because you would never imagine my resources by looking at me and how I live. landlords do this shit as a matter of course and only back off when they realize not only CAN you defend yourself, but you WILL defend yourself.
Think about it like this.
There are laws on the books that very explicitly state if a landlord makes a persons property inaccessible before they're legally required to move, that person can sue them for the value of everything lost.
1. How do you think I know that (they gave away 2 of my pets, reptiles)?
2. Why did that law need to be passed?
---
I'm sure there are landlords that act in good faith as decent human beings, but it seems as if there's something unique about landlords that makes it difficult. In all the time I've been renting I've met a single decent property manager, and no decent land lords.
> the one group of people I have absolutely no sympathy for are landlords
Going through life categorizing people into buckets and then proudly proclaiming you have zero sympathy for ANYONE in that bucket isn't a mature or healthy way to view the world. It seems like you have some really intense bones to pick (your reptile story) and are extending that anecdotal experience onto a group of tens of millions, a mental leap which is usually frowned upon in circles like this. Just my thoughts.
Going through life categorizing people into buckets and then proudly proclaiming you have zero sympathy for ANYONE in that bucket isn't a mature or healthy way to view the world. It seems like you have some really intense bones to pick (your reptile story) and are extending that anecdotal experience onto a group of tens of millions, a mental leap which is usually frowned upon in circles like this. Just my thoughts.
Hey man, I get it. I'm a worse, less moral, human being than you are. It's just my lot in life, and as such, I deserve to be judged for it.
But I must ask, could you judge in silence? I suspect I'm not the only one who finds the noise distracting.
But I must ask, could you judge in silence? I suspect I'm not the only one who finds the noise distracting.
> But I must ask, could you judge in silence?
No free human will ever do this.
Landlords can be a mixed bag, tenants can be too. My mother's had a tenant nearly totally destroy one of her homes by bringing in five juvenile pitbulls when there was supposed to be one. She then refused to leave the property and didn't notify my mother when the aerobic septic system wasn't working because that'd require my mother to go in the bathroom where a 3x3 hole was made in the floor.
On the other hand, as a renter I've been subjected to some arcane laws. I was threatened with having to pay the remainder of the rent on a contract when I bought a house. I've had them nickel and dime me for average wear and tear. I had one that liked to stop by nearly monthly.
This tells me a few things, some probably based on my own biases:
- The laws that maximize one person's rights can cut into another person's. Sharing property complicates this further.
- Poor folks (who my mom rents to) do make poor decisions, but a lot of it is experiencing the cycle of being poor or trying to cope with it. That doesn't give them a right to destroy other people's stuff, but it tells me that we should be focusing on the poor cycle as a class issue.
No free human will ever do this.
Landlords can be a mixed bag, tenants can be too. My mother's had a tenant nearly totally destroy one of her homes by bringing in five juvenile pitbulls when there was supposed to be one. She then refused to leave the property and didn't notify my mother when the aerobic septic system wasn't working because that'd require my mother to go in the bathroom where a 3x3 hole was made in the floor.
On the other hand, as a renter I've been subjected to some arcane laws. I was threatened with having to pay the remainder of the rent on a contract when I bought a house. I've had them nickel and dime me for average wear and tear. I had one that liked to stop by nearly monthly.
This tells me a few things, some probably based on my own biases:
- The laws that maximize one person's rights can cut into another person's. Sharing property complicates this further.
- Poor folks (who my mom rents to) do make poor decisions, but a lot of it is experiencing the cycle of being poor or trying to cope with it. That doesn't give them a right to destroy other people's stuff, but it tells me that we should be focusing on the poor cycle as a class issue.
The issue is that I'm a great tenant and still have to deal with the crap. I've been renting for well over 20 years at this point and I've never been late, not even once.
That crappy tenants exist is not an excuse for so much consistency in how badly landlords treat their tenants.
The single property manager that treated me well? I stayed in that house for 6 years. Do you know why I moved? The landlord switched property managers. Literally month X everything was fine, month X + 1 I was fighting with them. And what about? They wanted to charge me a processing fee for my rent and wouldn't accept a check. They were based out of state, didn't have a local office, didn't accept check, and were pushing the processing fees onto their tenants. yeah, fuck that.
And what I said above about never being late? Not totally true. That property manager had the same bank I did so I would transfer money directly to her account, send her an email and she would respond with a confirmation that she saw it. At some point she switched banks. I waited until the last day to pick up a cashiers check to run by her office, only, unbeknownst to me, my bank had shortened their hours due to covid so I couldn't. When I realized this I called her, explained the situation, told her I'd be at her office first thing monday morning (it was a friday) and nothing was ever said about a late fee.
landlords tend to be assholes for no good reason and they generally get away with it because of the power differential that exists (or is perceived to exist) between them and their tenants. There are many more laws on the books protecting tenants than landlords and the reason for that is BECAUSE they tend to be assholes. There are laws on the books stating landlords are not allowed to let themselves into others homes whenever they want because if that law didn't exist many of them would.
That crappy tenants exist is not an excuse for so much consistency in how badly landlords treat their tenants.
The single property manager that treated me well? I stayed in that house for 6 years. Do you know why I moved? The landlord switched property managers. Literally month X everything was fine, month X + 1 I was fighting with them. And what about? They wanted to charge me a processing fee for my rent and wouldn't accept a check. They were based out of state, didn't have a local office, didn't accept check, and were pushing the processing fees onto their tenants. yeah, fuck that.
And what I said above about never being late? Not totally true. That property manager had the same bank I did so I would transfer money directly to her account, send her an email and she would respond with a confirmation that she saw it. At some point she switched banks. I waited until the last day to pick up a cashiers check to run by her office, only, unbeknownst to me, my bank had shortened their hours due to covid so I couldn't. When I realized this I called her, explained the situation, told her I'd be at her office first thing monday morning (it was a friday) and nothing was ever said about a late fee.
landlords tend to be assholes for no good reason and they generally get away with it because of the power differential that exists (or is perceived to exist) between them and their tenants. There are many more laws on the books protecting tenants than landlords and the reason for that is BECAUSE they tend to be assholes. There are laws on the books stating landlords are not allowed to let themselves into others homes whenever they want because if that law didn't exist many of them would.
Sure, just saying I've seen both ends of this. It seems to me the problem is the framework that's at work. It incentivizes landlords and tenants to think of the situation extractively rather than as a member of the social fabric.
I blame the landlords.
For example, they bitch about how hard it is to get tenants out of the house due to existing laws.
That's absolutely true, but what do they think the laws were put into place for? On the whole, they cannot be trusted to be fair. They did it to themselves.
For example, they bitch about how hard it is to get tenants out of the house due to existing laws.
That's absolutely true, but what do they think the laws were put into place for? On the whole, they cannot be trusted to be fair. They did it to themselves.
I think it's good to be called out for this to allow for introspection and also it helps the community here realize that vast generalizations may not always be accurate.
Here, let me quote myself
> I'm sure there are landlords that act in good faith as decent human beings, but it seems as if there's something unique about landlords that makes it difficult. In all the time I've been renting I've met a single decent property manager, and no decent land lords.
In reality it's just a random jackass on the internet that wanted to preen in front of others.
Introspection ... lmao. "I should figure out why I keep having to pull out my lawyer to keep landlords from abusing me".
In reality, it's because I rent cheap and they're used to having a power differential that doesn't exist with me.
> I'm sure there are landlords that act in good faith as decent human beings, but it seems as if there's something unique about landlords that makes it difficult. In all the time I've been renting I've met a single decent property manager, and no decent land lords.
In reality it's just a random jackass on the internet that wanted to preen in front of others.
Introspection ... lmao. "I should figure out why I keep having to pull out my lawyer to keep landlords from abusing me".
In reality, it's because I rent cheap and they're used to having a power differential that doesn't exist with me.
If you were talking about a group I have no relation to, I'd get it. But I'm a landlord; two of my best friends and I are living in a home I purchased last year. Things are great. I didn't mean for my comment to be distracting noise, just an honest observation about how you're coming across.
You're technically a landlord, yes, but there's an ocean of difference between living with your two best buds who pay you rent and renting an entire house to a complete stranger.
> Personally, the one group of people I have absolutely no sympathy for are landlords
As a counterpoint, I was a landlord of a cheapish condo (rented for 17 years), and also a decent house in a solid middle class neighborhood (rented for 5 years). Wasn't looking to be a landlord, fell into it (really long story involving divorce right before housing bubble burst). Needed to do something to tread water until the housing market returned, renting was the only sane option (or bankruptcy, which I abhor). Had 4 tenants over the 17 year span.
Anyhow, having no experience as a landlord I tried my best to treat my tenants as "real human beings" and not be the evil landlord character you see on television. Repairs on time, quality work (by me), below market rent, didn't raise rent often (had an elderly lady on HUD in one, only raised her rent once in 10 years). I really tried to make it work, treat them well and they'll treat me well I figured.
I learned several valuable lessons about tenants. By and large they can and will take advantage of any good will you give them, as they assume that you're screwing them somehow. They also will not take care of your property regardless of how well you treat them. Their attitude towards me can be summarized as "take what you can get while the getting is good". I did not have a single tenant that didn't burn down the relationship with me on their way out. I usually found out the tenant was planning to leave once they stopped paying rent. Twice they squatted, had to get a lawyer in both cases, took forever to get them out. Just a mess.
The experience was (and still is) quite shocking to me. Being the type of person that pays my bills on time, I figured that everyone else did as well. I learned the hard way that you have to protect yourself or you will end up getting screwed. End of the day it's financially stressful making my monthly mortgage payment (and lawyer) on a place that someone else lives in but isn't paying me rent.
It seemed to me that what all of my renters had in common was that they rented because they weren't responsible enough to own. Being poor is a trap for sure, but at the end of the day I don't feel bad for the people I dealt with. Maybe I should, but it's hard to look past having to pay a lawyer to reclaim control of my property.
Got out of being a landlord as soon as the market made it possible. I could feel the stress roll off me when I sold those places.
The entire experience really soured me. I don't give people the benefit of the doubt like I used to, and am a lot more jaded with random strangers. Talking about it now is bringing back bad memories.
That said, it sucks being poor for sure. It's hard to rise above it. And yes I'm sure most career landlords suck. You have to be a lot more callous than I was to make it work at scale. Personally I know I went above and beyond and was just treated poorly for it. I suppose I let that happen, but I'm never going to make that mistake again.
It's not so much that the poor can't catch a break, but that they don't recognize the break when they get it, and don't know how to follow through and/or capitalize on opportunity, and have no problem biting the hand that's helping them. It's a very moment-by-moment type of existence, I suppose it's survival instincts kicking in that explains some of the behavior. Lying is better than being homeless, etc.
Just one man's experience and my 2 cents. I wasn't a career landlord. Draw whatever conclusions you will.
As a counterpoint, I was a landlord of a cheapish condo (rented for 17 years), and also a decent house in a solid middle class neighborhood (rented for 5 years). Wasn't looking to be a landlord, fell into it (really long story involving divorce right before housing bubble burst). Needed to do something to tread water until the housing market returned, renting was the only sane option (or bankruptcy, which I abhor). Had 4 tenants over the 17 year span.
Anyhow, having no experience as a landlord I tried my best to treat my tenants as "real human beings" and not be the evil landlord character you see on television. Repairs on time, quality work (by me), below market rent, didn't raise rent often (had an elderly lady on HUD in one, only raised her rent once in 10 years). I really tried to make it work, treat them well and they'll treat me well I figured.
I learned several valuable lessons about tenants. By and large they can and will take advantage of any good will you give them, as they assume that you're screwing them somehow. They also will not take care of your property regardless of how well you treat them. Their attitude towards me can be summarized as "take what you can get while the getting is good". I did not have a single tenant that didn't burn down the relationship with me on their way out. I usually found out the tenant was planning to leave once they stopped paying rent. Twice they squatted, had to get a lawyer in both cases, took forever to get them out. Just a mess.
The experience was (and still is) quite shocking to me. Being the type of person that pays my bills on time, I figured that everyone else did as well. I learned the hard way that you have to protect yourself or you will end up getting screwed. End of the day it's financially stressful making my monthly mortgage payment (and lawyer) on a place that someone else lives in but isn't paying me rent.
It seemed to me that what all of my renters had in common was that they rented because they weren't responsible enough to own. Being poor is a trap for sure, but at the end of the day I don't feel bad for the people I dealt with. Maybe I should, but it's hard to look past having to pay a lawyer to reclaim control of my property.
Got out of being a landlord as soon as the market made it possible. I could feel the stress roll off me when I sold those places.
The entire experience really soured me. I don't give people the benefit of the doubt like I used to, and am a lot more jaded with random strangers. Talking about it now is bringing back bad memories.
That said, it sucks being poor for sure. It's hard to rise above it. And yes I'm sure most career landlords suck. You have to be a lot more callous than I was to make it work at scale. Personally I know I went above and beyond and was just treated poorly for it. I suppose I let that happen, but I'm never going to make that mistake again.
It's not so much that the poor can't catch a break, but that they don't recognize the break when they get it, and don't know how to follow through and/or capitalize on opportunity, and have no problem biting the hand that's helping them. It's a very moment-by-moment type of existence, I suppose it's survival instincts kicking in that explains some of the behavior. Lying is better than being homeless, etc.
Just one man's experience and my 2 cents. I wasn't a career landlord. Draw whatever conclusions you will.
Even the attitude.
You're giving them a helping hand by asking them to pay you every month and fixing things that a part of the contract.
---
And to be clear, I'm not bitching that a landlord will evict someone for not paying rent. Those issues have absolutely nothing to do with it.
You're giving them a helping hand by asking them to pay you every month and fixing things that a part of the contract.
---
And to be clear, I'm not bitching that a landlord will evict someone for not paying rent. Those issues have absolutely nothing to do with it.
I'm bitching because I met my end of the contract, and they didn't.
I'm bitching because I gave them goodwill, and they burned it.
I'm bitching because I trusted them as human beings, and got taken advantage of.
I'll give you just one example of what I dealt with. The son of the elderly lady was trying to start a handyman business, and she asked if I would pay him to do the repairs. Help him get started etc. Long story short, I paid him (in advance, I'm the idiot) and he never did the work. I found out about this when I went over to the place and saw the work wasn't done, but the materials I paid for were gone. She stopped asking for ridiculous things for a while after that one.
I'm not saying I'm a saint. But I really tried to not be "that guy". It was impossible.
I'm getting angry just revisiting this stuff. sigh.
Edit: Regarding fixing things was my end of the contract, there was nothing too small I wouldn't fix. When it got to the point she was asking me to change lightbulbs for her, and clean the shower she let get full of mildew, I had enough.
I'm bitching because I gave them goodwill, and they burned it.
I'm bitching because I trusted them as human beings, and got taken advantage of.
I'll give you just one example of what I dealt with. The son of the elderly lady was trying to start a handyman business, and she asked if I would pay him to do the repairs. Help him get started etc. Long story short, I paid him (in advance, I'm the idiot) and he never did the work. I found out about this when I went over to the place and saw the work wasn't done, but the materials I paid for were gone. She stopped asking for ridiculous things for a while after that one.
I'm not saying I'm a saint. But I really tried to not be "that guy". It was impossible.
I'm getting angry just revisiting this stuff. sigh.
Edit: Regarding fixing things was my end of the contract, there was nothing too small I wouldn't fix. When it got to the point she was asking me to change lightbulbs for her, and clean the shower she let get full of mildew, I had enough.
I understand what you're saying, what I'm saying is that most landlords treat people like ass regardless of how that person has treated them.
I totally understand. Been on the receiving end of shitty landlords myself when I was a young man with little to my name. I'm sorry for your bad experiences, the power imbalance you described is real. Apologies for appearing callous and not making that point clearer.
I only posted my experience to counter your generalization about landlords. There are good and bad actors on both sides, and landlords can get taken advantage of too.
It seems that a small minority of folks ruin it for the larger group, who then get conditioned to treat the other side in kind as a pre-emptive defense mechanism (When in Rome...). I wasn't like most renters, but got treated the same as the rest. I'm sure my landlords had horror stories, and were jaded, so I was just another young punk to them, which isn't fair at all to me. At some point you give up. I got out of being a landlord before I got too jaded.
My experience as a landlord probably had less to do with me and more to do with their previous landlords.. To them I was just another landlord, so they're thinking why would I treat them any different? So why would they treat me any different?
The power imbalance goes both ways, and seems to me to have something to do with "having nothing to lose". I had a lot to lose if I didn't pay my mortgage to the bank, but my renters had nothing to lose by not paying me. They had all the leverage. I learned to be careful when dealing with people who have little/nothing to lose. As much as I tried to make renting a mutually beneficial relationship, it just exposed me and my finances to people with no real skin in the game.
I only posted my experience to counter your generalization about landlords. There are good and bad actors on both sides, and landlords can get taken advantage of too.
It seems that a small minority of folks ruin it for the larger group, who then get conditioned to treat the other side in kind as a pre-emptive defense mechanism (When in Rome...). I wasn't like most renters, but got treated the same as the rest. I'm sure my landlords had horror stories, and were jaded, so I was just another young punk to them, which isn't fair at all to me. At some point you give up. I got out of being a landlord before I got too jaded.
My experience as a landlord probably had less to do with me and more to do with their previous landlords.. To them I was just another landlord, so they're thinking why would I treat them any different? So why would they treat me any different?
The power imbalance goes both ways, and seems to me to have something to do with "having nothing to lose". I had a lot to lose if I didn't pay my mortgage to the bank, but my renters had nothing to lose by not paying me. They had all the leverage. I learned to be careful when dealing with people who have little/nothing to lose. As much as I tried to make renting a mutually beneficial relationship, it just exposed me and my finances to people with no real skin in the game.
This is true, it's a vicious cycle but it's not only about poverty. It's about human life in general. When something goes wrong other things follow it.
Having health problems directly implies that your career will suffer that your dating life will suffer that your finances will suffer. It's all connected.
The good news is that it's not as bleak as improving one area improves the others as well and people just don't need as much money as is advertised to lead happy lives. When I had very little money I was much happier. I've been utterly depressed in a 4 star hotels and happy as a clam in a single room crap-hole with very poor heat isolation. What I've learned is that if you aren't happy living modestly you are compensating for some deeper issue by throwing money at cars and things.
Whenever I see a Westerner concerned about money I realise they have much bigger problems that aren't being addressed. Yes, US is a place where it's really bad to be poor but all you need to get out of the cycle is for a single time to get lucky. And that's it suddenly you are on an upward trajectory with compounding success. I think everyone should experience at least once in their lives how it is to be poor. If they don't get traumatised by the experience and become misers constantly scared of losing their wealth then they win if not then it's really sad. Rich people who are petrified of losing their wealth look utterly miserable.
Having health problems directly implies that your career will suffer that your dating life will suffer that your finances will suffer. It's all connected.
The good news is that it's not as bleak as improving one area improves the others as well and people just don't need as much money as is advertised to lead happy lives. When I had very little money I was much happier. I've been utterly depressed in a 4 star hotels and happy as a clam in a single room crap-hole with very poor heat isolation. What I've learned is that if you aren't happy living modestly you are compensating for some deeper issue by throwing money at cars and things.
Whenever I see a Westerner concerned about money I realise they have much bigger problems that aren't being addressed. Yes, US is a place where it's really bad to be poor but all you need to get out of the cycle is for a single time to get lucky. And that's it suddenly you are on an upward trajectory with compounding success. I think everyone should experience at least once in their lives how it is to be poor. If they don't get traumatised by the experience and become misers constantly scared of losing their wealth then they win if not then it's really sad. Rich people who are petrified of losing their wealth look utterly miserable.
adriand(1)
An interesting thing is that the rich will keep the poor down in a strange way: they'll encourage crime in poor communities, demanding less policing, asking for shoplifters to be let free, etc. resulting in food deserts.
The poor want safety and peace and our society wants them to tolerate violence and crime.
The poor want safety and peace and our society wants them to tolerate violence and crime.
Can you give some examples of this?
I know there exist some humans who may behave in terrible ways like this if given the chance but to think that this is a generalizable behavior among the rich just seems like a stretch.
I know there exist some humans who may behave in terrible ways like this if given the chance but to think that this is a generalizable behavior among the rich just seems like a stretch.
I think what they mean is that people who live in nice neighborhoods and never have to deal with the practical effects of high crime, are often the ones calling for defunding the police, building low barrier homeless shelters in less well-off neighborhoods, etc. Their Teslas parked in their garages in their gated communities will never get broken into or have their catalytic converters sawed off. They earn social virtue points by espousing these views.
But the middle class households living in a blue collar neighborhood are constantly getting their packages stolen, mailboxes and cars broken into, even occasional gunfire once in a while. Unfortunately, they don't have the disposable income to handle these mishaps easily.
But the middle class households living in a blue collar neighborhood are constantly getting their packages stolen, mailboxes and cars broken into, even occasional gunfire once in a while. Unfortunately, they don't have the disposable income to handle these mishaps easily.
Precisely this. In the Bay Area, the rich areas have slow streets, stop signs, and police. The poor areas should not have speeding enforcement or red light enforcement or stop sign enforcement because of racial disparity due to excess policing in poor neighborhoods. If poor neighborhoods have more stringent speeding enforcement, that means the streets there are safer!
A lot of these are defacto policy here in the Bay Area (another commenter accurately surmised I'm in SF - I am). You won't find someone making it explicit policy every time but as sibling commenter has mentioned, it is how things are done here.
A lot of these are defacto policy here in the Bay Area (another commenter accurately surmised I'm in SF - I am). You won't find someone making it explicit policy every time but as sibling commenter has mentioned, it is how things are done here.
I don't think most rich have an explicit goal of encouraging crime in poor neighborhoods or harming the poor, though it may be a side effect of them pursuing their own interests.
This is true. It's the classic thing: it's not that they hate you, they just don't care about you.
Are you talking about San Francisco? Sounds like San Francisco.
I'm really tired of such analyses.
Money, money, money. Quality of life is not measured by money per se.
We've made money into an excessively big issue in the US. Money is just supposed to reduce friction in trade so you don't have to make ten trades to get the thing you really want.
Poverty is not about money. It's about all the myriad ways we say "Fuck you" to "the wrong kind of people."
Wrong skin color.
Wrong gender.
Wrong sexual orientation.
Etc.
I don't even know where to begin. You can't solve a problem from the same mindset that created it and actively keeps it alive.
Money, money, money. Quality of life is not measured by money per se.
We've made money into an excessively big issue in the US. Money is just supposed to reduce friction in trade so you don't have to make ten trades to get the thing you really want.
Poverty is not about money. It's about all the myriad ways we say "Fuck you" to "the wrong kind of people."
Wrong skin color.
Wrong gender.
Wrong sexual orientation.
Etc.
I don't even know where to begin. You can't solve a problem from the same mindset that created it and actively keeps it alive.
I don't see how you prove your point. It's basic economics that, in the job market, supply and demand are the forces that set the amount of money any job will pay, so a job that anyone can do might pay $10 an hour, while a highly-specialized job might require paying $100 an hour to attract that smaller group of people to consider dedicating their skills to that job. None of that involves any of the attributes you've mentioned. And it's tough to believe you when you say that "money is not the mindset" then go on to say "money is just how we exchange our value for goods and services without making 10 trades to get what we want".
One of the biggest risk factors for homelessness is being LGBTQ.
Now explain that one by saying who gets hired or whatever has nothing to do with anything I said.
Now explain that one by saying who gets hired or whatever has nothing to do with anything I said.
In a town of 1000 people, if 100 are homeless, and 25 are LGBTQ, that certainly does spell out that the town has a discrimination problem. However, that doesn't mean that homelessness is guaranteed if you're openly LGBTQ, nor does it mean that everyone who is homeless is LGBTQ. It just means that it's a big risk factor.
So while discrimination of protected classes is still likely the biggest factor in homelessness in the US, it's not the only thing, and thus it's demonstrably false that "Poverty is not about money. It's about all the myriad ways we say 'Fuck you' to 'the wrong kind of people.'". If you solved discrimination overnight, we'd still have homelessness.
So while discrimination of protected classes is still likely the biggest factor in homelessness in the US, it's not the only thing, and thus it's demonstrably false that "Poverty is not about money. It's about all the myriad ways we say 'Fuck you' to 'the wrong kind of people.'". If you solved discrimination overnight, we'd still have homelessness.
Homelessness is mostly a housing issue.
But who ends up out in the cold in a world of plenty that distributes it such that "them that has, gets" has very much to do with who you are.
It's more complicated than that and it's probably not worth the effort to try to discuss it. Your goal is merely to shoot me down, not understand my point.
But who ends up out in the cold in a world of plenty that distributes it such that "them that has, gets" has very much to do with who you are.
It's more complicated than that and it's probably not worth the effort to try to discuss it. Your goal is merely to shoot me down, not understand my point.
Car dependency and bad city planning.
This is literally the majority of the problem.
If you have a walkable town, you don't need a car for your basic you need to live. You just walk to the store. Also, because going to a store is not a car trip, you can do it every day, or every other day. You don't need a insanely large fridge and freezers that Americans seem to have. You can also take advantage of temporary price reductions.
Towns built around walkability, bikes and public transport are just superior in every way that we can measure, from health to water use and so on.
The US needs to fundamentally change its approach to cities and towns. You can't have poor people working in cities to provide services and then force them to live in some Cul-de-Sac cheap house 1-2h drive outside of the city.
I highly suggest people listen to Peter Calthorpe, who coined the turn Transit Oriented Development. Here some great videos that are worth checking out, one general, one about California:
- General/China: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqldZhxl86I
- Cali: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUtdFbK4YG4
This article is missing the forest while talking about trees.