5 ms·

That's a pretty poor way of expressing the idea of the article. The point the article is making is that poor people often have their backs against the wall as

by yannyu 10y ago

That's a pretty poor way of expressing the idea of the article. The point the article is making is that poor people often have their backs against the wall as far as the number of choices they have in food, housing, jobs, location, etc. They're effectively a captive audience, which makes them an easy population to exploit. Maybe this is considered acceptable in society's economic model, but at the least people should be more aware of how your options fall away as you go further down the socio-economic ladder.

enoch_r 10y ago
This may be the book's point, but I don't think it's the article's. The author's claim that "the problem is that poverty is profitable" only makes sense if one believes that those profiting from the poor (like the landlords mentioned) are somehow responsible for their poverty.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- yannyu 10y ago
  Yeah, fair. The article editorializes and seems to advocate for more culpability on the people delivering the services. Which feels a little short-sighted, since poor people wouldn't necessarily be any better off if they didn't have these services at all.
koolba 10y ago
> Maybe this is considered acceptable in society's economic model, but at the least people should be more aware of how your options fall away as you go further down the socio-economic ladder. What rational person would expect your options to improve as you drop down the economic ladder? Less money, mo problems. The only situation I've seen where that's remotely true is applying for student aid where if you're parents saved money they're expected to pony it up, but if they spent it all on flat screen TVs and new cars (and hence are "cash poor") they're not expected to do so.
- zdean 10y ago
  "The only situation I've seen where that's remotely true is applying for student aid where if you're parents saved money they're expected to pony it up, but if they spent it all on flat screen TVs and new cars (and hence are "cash poor") they're not expected to do so." Are you suggesting that everyone falls into this (false?) binary?
  - ams6110 10y ago
    I do. I saved for my kid's education, and I didn't bother even applying for aid, because (a) I don't need it, (b) I wouldn't get any, and (c) it's not anyone else's responsibility to send my kid to college.
    - zdean 10y ago
      I applaud you for having the foresight to save up for your kids' education. At the same time, I think it's naive to say that the only reason people are cash poor (or even the primary reason) is because they buy flat screen TVs and new cars.
  - koolba 10y ago
    It's not that everybody falls into those two categories but if you're a middle class household and sock your money away rather than spending it as disposable income (TVs, toys, cars, vacations, steaks, ...) then you're expected to spend it on your children's education. I find it stupid because it disincentives saving and being responsible.
- yannyu 10y ago
  I don't think anyone necessarily expects that less money = more options, but I don't think people realize how many options you lose as you get poorer. The way that people talk about poverty, people seem to think that being poor is needing to tighten your belt and be more frugal and creative, maybe not getting an iPhone, maybe downsize your house. The reality of the situation is a bit less glamorous than that, where you can't actually find standard housing at all because of lack of credit and consistent income, resulting in needing to stay at motels for the long-haul (for example). This higher proportional cost puts a pretty severe strain on your cash-flow, maybe meaning that you have to optimize for getting money NOW, instead of two weeks from now. Being unable to get to a bank regularly means you either have to carry cash on-hand (which makes you a target) or you have to use check cashing services and other value storage methods (which provide poor return). Being poor isn't just like cutting costs and expenses, it's in fact an entirely different game from making ends meet for most middle-class people.

by yannyu 10y ago

enoch_r 10y ago

This may be the book's point, but I don't think it's the article's. The author's claim that "the problem is that poverty is profitable" only makes sense if one believes that those profiting from the poor (like the landlords mentioned) are somehow responsible for their poverty.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
yannyu 10y ago
Yeah, fair. The article editorializes and seems to advocate for more culpability on the people delivering the services. Which feels a little short-sighted, since poor people wouldn't necessarily be any better off if they didn't have these services at all.

koolba 10y ago

> Maybe this is considered acceptable in society's economic model, but at the least people should be more aware of how your options fall away as you go further down the socio-economic ladder. What rational person would expect your options to improve as you drop down the economic ladder? Less money, mo problems. The only situation I've seen where that's remotely true is applying for student aid where if you're parents saved money they're expected to pony it up, but if they spent it all on flat screen TVs and new cars (and hence are "cash poor") they're not expected to do so.

zdean 10y ago
"The only situation I've seen where that's remotely true is applying for student aid where if you're parents saved money they're expected to pony it up, but if they spent it all on flat screen TVs and new cars (and hence are "cash poor") they're not expected to do so." Are you suggesting that everyone falls into this (false?) binary?
- ams6110 10y ago
  I do. I saved for my kid's education, and I didn't bother even applying for aid, because (a) I don't need it, (b) I wouldn't get any, and (c) it's not anyone else's responsibility to send my kid to college.
  - zdean 10y ago
    I applaud you for having the foresight to save up for your kids' education. At the same time, I think it's naive to say that the only reason people are cash poor (or even the primary reason) is because they buy flat screen TVs and new cars.
- koolba 10y ago
  It's not that everybody falls into those two categories but if you're a middle class household and sock your money away rather than spending it as disposable income (TVs, toys, cars, vacations, steaks, ...) then you're expected to spend it on your children's education. I find it stupid because it disincentives saving and being responsible.
yannyu 10y ago
I don't think anyone necessarily expects that less money = more options, but I don't think people realize how many options you lose as you get poorer. The way that people talk about poverty, people seem to think that being poor is needing to tighten your belt and be more frugal and creative, maybe not getting an iPhone, maybe downsize your house. The reality of the situation is a bit less glamorous than that, where you can't actually find standard housing at all because of lack of credit and consistent income, resulting in needing to stay at motels for the long-haul (for example). This higher proportional cost puts a pretty severe strain on your cash-flow, maybe meaning that you have to optimize for getting money NOW, instead of two weeks from now. Being unable to get to a bank regularly means you either have to carry cash on-hand (which makes you a target) or you have to use check cashing services and other value storage methods (which provide poor return). Being poor isn't just like cutting costs and expenses, it's in fact an entirely different game from making ends meet for most middle-class people.