3 ms·

These are all true, but they are weaker examples than the boots, where the rich guy bought a higher quality version of something which both needed, and still sa

by iguy 8y ago

These are all true, but they are weaker examples than the boots, where the rich guy bought a higher quality version of something which both needed, and still saved money.

evgen 8y ago
A cheap used car will get you where you want to go, but will cost more in maintenance and fuel to get that job done. It will need to be replaced more frequently than the car purchased by someone who will buy new or who will purchase a 'new-ish' used car, and when the time comes for replacement the rich guy will probably have some residual value in the car while the cheap car is probably being replaced because it is no longer operable.
- iguy 8y ago
  I agree that this could in principle happen, for some values of cars. It could also literally happen with shoes, you can walk a lot more miles in $200 hiking boots than in four pairs of $50 sneakers. And in GGP's example, someone with time to shop around, and a credit card could buy the exact same crappy microwave for $40 online, instead of $50 downtown right now. What I'm disputing is that this is anything like the pattern, and that this is useful for thinking about poverty. People with more money spend more money on their cars, their clothes, their kitchens. They aren't staying rich by their ability to save 5% on their (larger) electricity bills by paying on time.
  - dorchadas 8y ago
    The thing is that it all adds up, and poor people are constantly being forced to repurchase simple things. Yes, well off people might spend more on cars, clothes, etc., but they don't have to do it as often. Overtime, the fact that poorer people have to buy more often adds up to them spending more money. Plus, it means they don't have any time to save up the money, since they always have to worry about replacing something frequently as opposed to 10 years from now. I've seen it with people buying jeans for work. Buying the cheapest quality jeans possible from a Rural King, and then having to buy another pair again in a few months. Same with tennis shoes from Payless Shoes, for instance, versus buying Nike.

by iguy 8y ago

These are all true, but they are weaker examples than the boots, where the rich guy bought a higher quality version of something which both needed, and still saved money.

evgen 8y ago

A cheap used car will get you where you want to go, but will cost more in maintenance and fuel to get that job done. It will need to be replaced more frequently than the car purchased by someone who will buy new or who will purchase a 'new-ish' used car, and when the time comes for replacement the rich guy will probably have some residual value in the car while the cheap car is probably being replaced because it is no longer operable.

iguy 8y ago
I agree that this could in principle happen, for some values of cars. It could also literally happen with shoes, you can walk a lot more miles in $200 hiking boots than in four pairs of $50 sneakers. And in GGP's example, someone with time to shop around, and a credit card could buy the exact same crappy microwave for $40 online, instead of $50 downtown right now. What I'm disputing is that this is anything like the pattern, and that this is useful for thinking about poverty. People with more money spend more money on their cars, their clothes, their kitchens. They aren't staying rich by their ability to save 5% on their (larger) electricity bills by paying on time.
- dorchadas 8y ago
  The thing is that it all adds up, and poor people are constantly being forced to repurchase simple things. Yes, well off people might spend more on cars, clothes, etc., but they don't have to do it as often. Overtime, the fact that poorer people have to buy more often adds up to them spending more money. Plus, it means they don't have any time to save up the money, since they always have to worry about replacing something frequently as opposed to 10 years from now. I've seen it with people buying jeans for work. Buying the cheapest quality jeans possible from a Rural King, and then having to buy another pair again in a few months. Same with tennis shoes from Payless Shoes, for instance, versus buying Nike.