4 ms·

it’s hard to have a moral compass when your stomach is empty. even if that’s not the case you will always have bad actors. always. the question is: who has the

it’s hard to have a moral compass when your stomach is empty. even if that’s not the case you will always have bad actors. always. the question is: who has the right incentives to stop this kind of behavior?

nkrisc 7y ago
And yet people poorer and more destitute than her avoid turning to crime. Read the article. She's not hungry, she likes getting stuff and having it be like Christmas everyday. It's simple greed.
- rantwasp 7y ago
  to me it sounds like a person with some sort of addiction/mental health issue. she found a way to get her fix without starving (ie spending all her money on crap and being broke afterwards). it’s true that good people are not resolving to this crappy behavior. it’s also true that are a lot of people that do cheat the system. bottom line, this is a systematic issue and until the right incentives are in place this problem is not going to just fix itself.
MichaelApproved 7y ago
Don't excuse her behavior with a made-up "stomach is empty" sob story. This is far from a "stealing bread to eat" situation. Jessica isn't scamming people for basic needs, she's conning people for luxury items. If it were about simply putting food on the table, she'd be reselling everything after she reviewed them, instead of leaving them in a pile in some corner.
- imgabe 7y ago
  They're not even luxury items. From the article it sounds like a lot of them are really poor quality garbage. She sounds like a hoarder, honestly.
  - MichaelApproved 7y ago
    The luxury items are what she buys with the money she's paid for the fake reviews. As opposed to buying food with the money which OP is implying by saying her stomach is empty.
    - imgabe 7y ago
      The way I read it she's not getting paid. She buys the item out of pocket and then the seller reimburses her after she writes a review. She gets a free item, but no payment. She said she's losing money (probably some sellers are even more unscrupulous and don't pay, because what is she going to do?). She could probably resell some of the stuff for money, even at a fraction of the price she's make a little since she got it for free, but it doesn't sound like she's doing that.
      - rantwasp 7y ago
        the point is that if you’re buying a lot of stuff (maybe hoarding) your financials may suffer. she found a way (not excusing her behavior) to make it less impactful to her budget. morals are nice, but i think you need to be off-balance to do something like this to begin with.
      - bdowling 7y ago
        Exchange of goods for services is called “payment in kind”. It is a form of payment.
        imgabe 7y ago
        The comment I'm replying to specifically said money.
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      Re-read the article. She's not really getting paid for the reviews. She's getting the cost of the items refunded. Net $0, and she's even in the hole a bit from companies that ghost her. > “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.” The cheap crap is the payment. She's not making much on reselling them, either: > Jessica gives away many of the items she reviews, and she has made about $150 by selling products on Facebook Marketplace. She’s donated clothes that don’t fit and handed off the rest to family members or friends.
vfsbf 7y ago
Look at her picture and tell me that her stomach is empty
- nkrisc 7y ago
  That's not really necessary, and I avoided that turn of phrase for this exact reason. Let's not make it about that.
ipython 7y ago
To be clear this is not an ad hominem attack on the author. She is not doing this because she's starving. Anyone who can front-load $2800 (as she gets paid several weeks, to months, afterward from the sellers) can certainly afford to feed herself. Besides, you can't eat an outdoor plastic bird bath. To her this is most likely a game... I get it, it's fun, and you get a bunch of random stuff that you don't pay for! As mentioned in the article, "it's Christmas every day". Who doesn't like getting packages?
- MichaelApproved 7y ago
  It's not a game. She gets paid cash, in addition to keeping the product, for helping them scam people.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    She gets reimbursed cash, as far as I can tell from the article. She states she's running a loss (if you discount the free (and largely worthless, even dangerous) products) due to a percentage of her "clients" ghosting her.
    - MichaelApproved 7y ago
      You're right. It's too late to edit and correct my comment but here's the relevant part of the article. > “I really don’t think I’m making money on it at all. I’m pretty sure I’m losing money,” Jessica said while looking over her spreadsheet. “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.”
  - ipython 7y ago
    To be clear, I agree that she’s scamming people. But to her she sees this as a game, nothing more.
fortran77 7y ago
Look at her photo. Her stomach isn't empty to put it bluntly. If she worked 15 hours/week part-time for minimum wage, she'd have more spendable income (about $6500), than the benefits she gets from $15,000/year worth of merchandise. Of course, if she turns around and ebays this for, say $5,000, she won't have to report the income and can still collect maximum food stamp and housing aid benefits, which no doubt she does.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

nkrisc 7y ago

And yet people poorer and more destitute than her avoid turning to crime. Read the article. She's not hungry, she likes getting stuff and having it be like Christmas everyday. It's simple greed.

rantwasp 7y ago
to me it sounds like a person with some sort of addiction/mental health issue. she found a way to get her fix without starving (ie spending all her money on crap and being broke afterwards). it’s true that good people are not resolving to this crappy behavior. it’s also true that are a lot of people that do cheat the system. bottom line, this is a systematic issue and until the right incentives are in place this problem is not going to just fix itself.

MichaelApproved 7y ago

Don't excuse her behavior with a made-up "stomach is empty" sob story. This is far from a "stealing bread to eat" situation. Jessica isn't scamming people for basic needs, she's conning people for luxury items. If it were about simply putting food on the table, she'd be reselling everything after she reviewed them, instead of leaving them in a pile in some corner.

imgabe 7y ago
They're not even luxury items. From the article it sounds like a lot of them are really poor quality garbage. She sounds like a hoarder, honestly.
- MichaelApproved 7y ago
  The luxury items are what she buys with the money she's paid for the fake reviews. As opposed to buying food with the money which OP is implying by saying her stomach is empty.
  - imgabe 7y ago
    The way I read it she's not getting paid. She buys the item out of pocket and then the seller reimburses her after she writes a review. She gets a free item, but no payment. She said she's losing money (probably some sellers are even more unscrupulous and don't pay, because what is she going to do?). She could probably resell some of the stuff for money, even at a fraction of the price she's make a little since she got it for free, but it doesn't sound like she's doing that.
    - rantwasp 7y ago
      the point is that if you’re buying a lot of stuff (maybe hoarding) your financials may suffer. she found a way (not excusing her behavior) to make it less impactful to her budget. morals are nice, but i think you need to be off-balance to do something like this to begin with.
    - bdowling 7y ago
      Exchange of goods for services is called “payment in kind”. It is a form of payment.
      - imgabe 7y ago
        The comment I'm replying to specifically said money.
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    Re-read the article. She's not really getting paid for the reviews. She's getting the cost of the items refunded. Net $0, and she's even in the hole a bit from companies that ghost her. > “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.” The cheap crap is the payment. She's not making much on reselling them, either: > Jessica gives away many of the items she reviews, and she has made about $150 by selling products on Facebook Marketplace. She’s donated clothes that don’t fit and handed off the rest to family members or friends.

vfsbf 7y ago

Look at her picture and tell me that her stomach is empty

nkrisc 7y ago
That's not really necessary, and I avoided that turn of phrase for this exact reason. Let's not make it about that.

ipython 7y ago

To be clear this is not an ad hominem attack on the author. She is not doing this because she's starving. Anyone who can front-load $2800 (as she gets paid several weeks, to months, afterward from the sellers) can certainly afford to feed herself. Besides, you can't eat an outdoor plastic bird bath. To her this is most likely a game... I get it, it's fun, and you get a bunch of random stuff that you don't pay for! As mentioned in the article, "it's Christmas every day". Who doesn't like getting packages?

MichaelApproved 7y ago
It's not a game. She gets paid cash, in addition to keeping the product, for helping them scam people.
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  She gets reimbursed cash, as far as I can tell from the article. She states she's running a loss (if you discount the free (and largely worthless, even dangerous) products) due to a percentage of her "clients" ghosting her.
  - MichaelApproved 7y ago
    You're right. It's too late to edit and correct my comment but here's the relevant part of the article. > “I really don’t think I’m making money on it at all. I’m pretty sure I’m losing money,” Jessica said while looking over her spreadsheet. “I’m pretty sure I’m at a 10% loss. But I’m okay with it, because I’ve gotten a whole bunch of new stuff.”
- ipython 7y ago
  To be clear, I agree that she’s scamming people. But to her she sees this as a game, nothing more.

fortran77 7y ago

Look at her photo. Her stomach isn't empty to put it bluntly. If she worked 15 hours/week part-time for minimum wage, she'd have more spendable income (about $6500), than the benefits she gets from $15,000/year worth of merchandise. Of course, if she turns around and ebays this for, say $5,000, she won't have to report the income and can still collect maximum food stamp and housing aid benefits, which no doubt she does.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]