5 ms·

Your view of people's buying patterns is not accurate. I own a home care agency with 500 employees that live on low income (the government sets the Medicaid rei

Your view of people's buying patterns is not accurate. I own a home care agency with 500 employees that live on low income (the government sets the Medicaid reimbursement rate so we have no ability to raise wages). NO ONE is buying a new car, let alone every 36 months. Half our employees don't own a smart phone. We pay $10hr, in rural North Carolina, so lots of people live on even less. Please research this issue and go and meet people in this income bracket, you will see a different picture. I also encourage you to read Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich. The truth is most American's wages have gone to Health Insurance, College, and Housing. See https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/this-chart-is-the-best-explanation-of-middle-class-finances-you-will-ever-see/ar-BB10k9S7 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/this-chart-i...

listenallyall 7y ago
By definition, you're the one with a narrow perspective -- your employees are all low-income workers in a rural town. The parent never said NOBODY is poor -- in fact, he specifically acknowledged that there are poor people. His claim was that he doubted that 78% of the American population is. Additionally, many (many, not ALL) who technically are "poor", still find money to purchase expensive electronics.
- godelski 7y ago
  1) It doesn't matter if you're rich and living paycheck to paycheck. This is argument actually supports the idea that UBI won't cause inflation because clearly there is still inefficiencies in market capture if people are rich AND living paycheck to paycheck. (like I said above, inflation doesn't really happen when you don't have full market capture). 2) Selection bias is a thing. While there are rich Americans living paycheck to paycheck, most of the people in this situation are not rich. 3) I'm not sure I'd consider a smartphone an expensive electronic. You can get one for under $100 and a plan that is <$20/mo. This isn't exactly breaking the bank... 4) I also wouldn't call a cell phone a luxury item in today's society. Even a smart phone. You can't get a job without a phone number, which now usually means texting included. A smart phone just means you have a single device that can also get you on the internet. Again, we're talking about a purchase that is well under $1k, has high utility, and is being held onto for years. Sure, this isn't poor like poor in Africa, but does that really matter? We don't live in Africa. We live in a rich society, I'd like to live in a wealthy society. One where our poorest can get shelter and food. If our definition of poor becomes having constant access to housing, food, health care, and are able to do so on 40hrs/wk, and nothing more, I'd call that a success. But we're clearly not there yet. If we have that, I don't care if someone has a trillion dollars and can buy rocket ships because we're in a post scarcity society (maybe not world, but society).
  - listenallyall 7y ago
    Take it up with supportlocal4h. I never even used the phrase "paycheck to paycheck." Nor did I specify "smartphone" when mentioning electronics.
- digitaltrees 7y ago
  Except that my narrow perspective is a sample size of the large group at issue and is more accurate. Its the sample size that matters. I also gave recommendations for a much broader sample size in the book that spans multiple industries and geographies. Finally, I posited a specific theory as to why 78% of Americans are living pay check to pay check...the basic social mechanisms of survival, Health, Education and Housing, have risen at a rate far exceeding inflation and have actually exceeded average income levels. These rises are due to governmental policy and not some failing of individual citizen consumers. I would argue that if a person can't afford basics like Health, Education and Housing, the are poor. In fact, they report feeling poor; their bodies and minds exhibit the stress and anxiety of being poor. We can and should create companies and governmental policies to work to reduce this reality, rather than blaming people for their condition. If we as a society determine that it is necessary to have a car or cell phone to contribute in a productive manner we should ensure that as many people as possible have the tools to be productive. That's just a rational policy to boost GDP, the tax base, the total size of the Market for goods and services, and trade with other countries. You know, capitalism.
  - listenallyall 7y ago
    > my narrow perspective is a sample size of the large group at issue and is more accurate You stated 1/2 your employees don't own a smart phone. That is simply not representative of the general US adult population. Additionally, all your employees earn $10/hour. Again, not representative. Again, nobody is arguing there aren't poor people in dire situations. supportlocal4h's argument was that godelski's stats were exaggerated.

listenallyall 7y ago

By definition, you're the one with a narrow perspective -- your employees are all low-income workers in a rural town. The parent never said NOBODY is poor -- in fact, he specifically acknowledged that there are poor people. His claim was that he doubted that 78% of the American population is. Additionally, many (many, not ALL) who technically are "poor", still find money to purchase expensive electronics.

godelski 7y ago
1) It doesn't matter if you're rich and living paycheck to paycheck. This is argument actually supports the idea that UBI won't cause inflation because clearly there is still inefficiencies in market capture if people are rich AND living paycheck to paycheck. (like I said above, inflation doesn't really happen when you don't have full market capture). 2) Selection bias is a thing. While there are rich Americans living paycheck to paycheck, most of the people in this situation are not rich. 3) I'm not sure I'd consider a smartphone an expensive electronic. You can get one for under $100 and a plan that is <$20/mo. This isn't exactly breaking the bank... 4) I also wouldn't call a cell phone a luxury item in today's society. Even a smart phone. You can't get a job without a phone number, which now usually means texting included. A smart phone just means you have a single device that can also get you on the internet. Again, we're talking about a purchase that is well under $1k, has high utility, and is being held onto for years. Sure, this isn't poor like poor in Africa, but does that really matter? We don't live in Africa. We live in a rich society, I'd like to live in a wealthy society. One where our poorest can get shelter and food. If our definition of poor becomes having constant access to housing, food, health care, and are able to do so on 40hrs/wk, and nothing more, I'd call that a success. But we're clearly not there yet. If we have that, I don't care if someone has a trillion dollars and can buy rocket ships because we're in a post scarcity society (maybe not world, but society).
- listenallyall 7y ago
  Take it up with supportlocal4h. I never even used the phrase "paycheck to paycheck." Nor did I specify "smartphone" when mentioning electronics.
digitaltrees 7y ago
Except that my narrow perspective is a sample size of the large group at issue and is more accurate. Its the sample size that matters. I also gave recommendations for a much broader sample size in the book that spans multiple industries and geographies. Finally, I posited a specific theory as to why 78% of Americans are living pay check to pay check...the basic social mechanisms of survival, Health, Education and Housing, have risen at a rate far exceeding inflation and have actually exceeded average income levels. These rises are due to governmental policy and not some failing of individual citizen consumers. I would argue that if a person can't afford basics like Health, Education and Housing, the are poor. In fact, they report feeling poor; their bodies and minds exhibit the stress and anxiety of being poor. We can and should create companies and governmental policies to work to reduce this reality, rather than blaming people for their condition. If we as a society determine that it is necessary to have a car or cell phone to contribute in a productive manner we should ensure that as many people as possible have the tools to be productive. That's just a rational policy to boost GDP, the tax base, the total size of the Market for goods and services, and trade with other countries. You know, capitalism.
- listenallyall 7y ago
  > my narrow perspective is a sample size of the large group at issue and is more accurate You stated 1/2 your employees don't own a smart phone. That is simply not representative of the general US adult population. Additionally, all your employees earn $10/hour. Again, not representative. Again, nobody is arguing there aren't poor people in dire situations. supportlocal4h's argument was that godelski's stats were exaggerated.