> "it can get them something that helps them appear less poor to the people around them" I think it works the opposite -- if I see someone who I think is maybe

> "it can get them something that helps them appear less poor to the people around them" I think it works the opposite -- if I see someone who I think is maybe poor, and they whip out the latest and greatest iPhone or are wearing $200 shoes or overpriced brand-name sunglasses, now I know they're poor. Because it's an obvious status symbol that's not in line with the rest of their lifestyle. Other poor people aren't stupid; they see right through it as well. Whereas if I see someone who looks poor and they whip out an old Moto X and are wearing shoes from Payless, I assume they're comfortable with whatever economic/social status they have and don't need to try to signal. I view them as immediately more trustworthy and am more willing to cut them a deal, because I assume they're capable of long-term planning rather than impulsive spending. This might not be 100% accurate, but I find it's a generally effective rule of thumb, and I think a lot of people use it to evaluate.