3 ms·

Poverty is profitable to other people. People who are in poverty often have to depend on services that are overpriced and predatory. From check cashing services

Poverty is profitable to other people. People who are in poverty often have to depend on services that are overpriced and predatory. From check cashing services, and payday lenders, to not being able to go to a grocery store where prices are better, but instead depending on smaller stores of convenience where the prices are often higher. The lottery depends on those in poverty. Sometimes I think even the police and city governments depend on people in poverty to pay a large portion of fines.

hotshothenry 11y ago
Of course they do. IMO towing (especially here in SF where the price for getting your car towed is astronomical relatively speaking), lottery, all those types of gov't fines are really just a tax on the poor. If you're well off you don't really give a damn about getting your car towed a fee here and there, besides the inconvenience, but for someone who depends on their rinky-dink car to get to and from work, getting towed and having to pay a fee that is in some cases equivalent to the value of the car itself basically just fucks their entire life up.
- Overtonwindow 11y ago
  I agree completely on the towing. On the one hand I think the entire process of towing is rigged and corrupt, but on the other, I think it's enforcement is completely uneven and absolutely targets low income people.
FussyZeus 11y ago
If you haven't seen it, look up the Last Week Tonight on municipal violations and prepare to get angry. However there are a few things that are more explainable than others; check cashing places exist because banks are not designed for the poor at all. Thankfully this is, I think, going to change in the next few years what with all the startups cropping up to offer financial services to lower income people, since most of the shit the banks charge fees for is because they rely on antiquated processes and management that can be automated.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  In my experience banks don't charge fees for efficiency reasons, they charge fees because they can.
  - cauterized 11y ago
    Yup. Otherwise they wouldn't be adding new fees to accounts that have been open for decades.
ams6110 11y ago
Sometimes I think even the police and city governments depend on people in poverty You're right, but I don't think anyone has mentioned another big profiteer, the welfare bureaucracy itself. The government pays people to remain in poverty, and everyone employed in those programs is profiting from poverty and is incentivized for it to continue. So are the politicians who create these progams. It also contributes to the inflated the rents that the subject article complains about.
- Retra 11y ago
  Those people could just as easily be employed in other domains. This is all the more true when their income is conditional upon a centrally-managed stipend like all government employment is.
joe_the_user 11y ago
While plenty of money comes from businesses serving (or disserving) poor people, even more money comes from businesses serving wealthier people (with some portion of those services also qualifying as rip-offs). The problem with the article is it makes the implication that the money made by vulture capitalists in poor areas is the biggest motivation for the existence of the poor. But one can see a much larger beneficiary. If a company that automated a factory or moved a factory to a different region or country had to pay to support the wages of those workers it left behind, the costs of automation and mobility of capital would be much higher. Thus the ability of the poor to exist, the condition of each worker being on their own even if suddenly all the jobs in a given area dry up, is tremendously profitable to the largest industrial companies in the world.
- coliveira 11y ago
  > even more money comes from businesses serving wealthier people Not really. It depends on the country. Some third-world countries have most of the population in poverty, so in that case capitalists can make a lot of money from poor people and have no incentive to do otherwise.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
apozem 11y ago
People in city government absolutely depend on the poor and fine-based revenue. To use a recent example, the Department of Justice found the government of Ferguson colluded to give so many fines that they actually became a substantial and essential part of the city's budget. "For years, Ferguson's police force has meted out brutality, violated civil rights, and helped Ferguson officials to leech off the black community as shamelessly as would mafia bosses... "Ferguson officials repeatedly behaved as if their priority is not improving public safety or protecting the rights of residents, but maximizing the revenue that flows into city coffers, sometimes going so far as to anticipate decreasing sales tax revenues and urging the police force to make up for the shortfall by ticketing more people. Often, those tickets for minor offenses then turned into arrest warrants." http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguson-as-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-its-black-residents-michael-brown-department-of-justice-report/386887/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguson...

hotshothenry 11y ago

Of course they do. IMO towing (especially here in SF where the price for getting your car towed is astronomical relatively speaking), lottery, all those types of gov't fines are really just a tax on the poor. If you're well off you don't really give a damn about getting your car towed a fee here and there, besides the inconvenience, but for someone who depends on their rinky-dink car to get to and from work, getting towed and having to pay a fee that is in some cases equivalent to the value of the car itself basically just fucks their entire life up.

Overtonwindow 11y ago
I agree completely on the towing. On the one hand I think the entire process of towing is rigged and corrupt, but on the other, I think it's enforcement is completely uneven and absolutely targets low income people.

FussyZeus 11y ago

If you haven't seen it, look up the Last Week Tonight on municipal violations and prepare to get angry. However there are a few things that are more explainable than others; check cashing places exist because banks are not designed for the poor at all. Thankfully this is, I think, going to change in the next few years what with all the startups cropping up to offer financial services to lower income people, since most of the shit the banks charge fees for is because they rely on antiquated processes and management that can be automated.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
In my experience banks don't charge fees for efficiency reasons, they charge fees because they can.
- cauterized 11y ago
  Yup. Otherwise they wouldn't be adding new fees to accounts that have been open for decades.

ams6110 11y ago

Sometimes I think even the police and city governments depend on people in poverty You're right, but I don't think anyone has mentioned another big profiteer, the welfare bureaucracy itself. The government pays people to remain in poverty, and everyone employed in those programs is profiting from poverty and is incentivized for it to continue. So are the politicians who create these progams. It also contributes to the inflated the rents that the subject article complains about.

Retra 11y ago
Those people could just as easily be employed in other domains. This is all the more true when their income is conditional upon a centrally-managed stipend like all government employment is.

joe_the_user 11y ago

While plenty of money comes from businesses serving (or disserving) poor people, even more money comes from businesses serving wealthier people (with some portion of those services also qualifying as rip-offs). The problem with the article is it makes the implication that the money made by vulture capitalists in poor areas is the biggest motivation for the existence of the poor. But one can see a much larger beneficiary. If a company that automated a factory or moved a factory to a different region or country had to pay to support the wages of those workers it left behind, the costs of automation and mobility of capital would be much higher. Thus the ability of the poor to exist, the condition of each worker being on their own even if suddenly all the jobs in a given area dry up, is tremendously profitable to the largest industrial companies in the world.

coliveira 11y ago
> even more money comes from businesses serving wealthier people Not really. It depends on the country. Some third-world countries have most of the population in poverty, so in that case capitalists can make a lot of money from poor people and have no incentive to do otherwise.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

apozem 11y ago

People in city government absolutely depend on the poor and fine-based revenue. To use a recent example, the Department of Justice found the government of Ferguson colluded to give so many fines that they actually became a substantial and essential part of the city's budget. "For years, Ferguson's police force has meted out brutality, violated civil rights, and helped Ferguson officials to leech off the black community as shamelessly as would mafia bosses... "Ferguson officials repeatedly behaved as if their priority is not improving public safety or protecting the rights of residents, but maximizing the revenue that flows into city coffers, sometimes going so far as to anticipate decreasing sales tax revenues and urging the police force to make up for the shortfall by ticketing more people. Often, those tickets for minor offenses then turned into arrest warrants." http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguson-as-a-criminal-conspiracy-against-its-black-residents-michael-brown-department-of-justice-report/386887/ http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/03/ferguson...