4 ms·

An $800 car, with taxes, titles, fees, registration and plate transfers, will come to upwards of $1100. In which case, no, you're not ahead. That's of course,

An $800 car, with taxes, titles, fees, registration and plate transfers, will come to upwards of $1100. In which case, no, you're not ahead. That's of course, presuming you have the $1100 in the first place. Your other option, if you don't, is to finance with no money down. find a way to finance a solid car from a reputable source Didn't this whole thread start because people were flabbergasted that someone would dare finance a new vehicle while they were poor? And here you're suggesting that as a reasonable option. Point is, $325 car payment is not a crappy decision when you have no other reasonable choice. find a way to get a ride/take the bus/ride a bike You live in Aurora, Illinois. New job is in Carol Stream. 30 min drive, two and a half hour bikeride. It's January. There's no busses. I think your expectations for the options available are much more unrealistic than the simulator. A car payment, a family pet, and a cell phone are not luxuries. They are not crappy decisions. Let's take the one you seem to be the most callous about, which is having a dog. I'm assuming your not a dog person, so you don't have the same kind of attachment to a dog that others might. Food for a mid-size dog is about $40 a month. Assume the dog's already grown, you can skate by on that, assuming there's no major vet bills. Now the idea that people will hit hard times, and immediately drown their dog in a river, or bring them to the pound, is ridiculous. The site didn't make it a matter of people getting a new puppy for christmas when they already can't feed themselves, and for people to jump on the idea of having a pet that you're responsible for, and not immediately throwing them to the curb at the first sign of trouble, is unrealistic. If you're having hard times, $40 is a small price to pay for companionship and unconditional love. All told, $430 ($325+$65+$40) a month is $5,160 a year, for three things that you can make a real strong case for. I simply cannot see spending that money as some kind of frivolous luxury of the irresponsible poor. Look, we could all just live in squats, eat dumpstered food, not have cell phones, and only get clothes from a free box. Maybe then, when we run out of money, people on the internet will finally be sympathetic.

lotharbot 15y ago
The issue is more like, the game consistently presented options on the expensive side, with no ability to make any sort of reasonable spending cuts or prioritizations. It's not the car, in isolation. It's not the dog, in isolation. It's not the phone, in isolation. It's not the $60 internet, in isolation. It's the combination -- the supposedly hella-poor person with a higher car payment than I've ever had (despite spending more to be close to work), a higher phone bill than I've ever had, a higher internet bill than I've ever had, and a pet who's costing an extra hundred bucks in rent. And the game doesn't allow the player to cut any of these things. I have no problem with a reasonable car payment. A $6000 car with a 3 year lease and a poor 10% rate is $200/month, which isn't so bad. Even a brand new $12000 economy car on a 60 month lease doesn't cost $325/month unless you jack the rate all the way up to 18%. (Note that the game said "car payment"; presumably gas and insurance are separate.) If you're in that situation and you've got a $325/month car payment, that's a prime candidate for a cut. The same is true for $65/month phone bill, $60/month internet, and $100/month pet rent. It's not that you can't have a car, pet, phone, or broadband if you're poor. It's that taken together they comprise a set of luxuries you can't really afford in that situation. Maybe you can afford one or two -- maybe the dog is really important and you can't bear to give it up, but you can find a way to get by with slower internet. These are all candidates for being cut, yet the game treats them all as stuff you're just stuck with. That's why I have a problem with this particular "simulation". I myself am borderline poor. I've got a lot of family and friends who are poor. I've helped some move back in with parents. I've some move into, out of, and between shelters and various forms of transitional housing. Some of us have had really tight budgets before and have had to make some really tough decisions. I know what it's like. And this "simulation" devotes over 40% of my monthly budget to things that I'd consider prime candidates for cutting back on, and doesn't provide the option to cut back. That's not realism. That's propaganda.
- michaelchisari 15y ago
  you can find a way to get by with slower internet The simulator gave you the option to go to the library instead. It also gave you the option to put the dog to sleep for $50, or just let the dog suffer. It seems to me you're ignoring that the simulator gave you a lot of cheaper options, it just wasn't afraid to point out that the cheaper options seriously suck. unless you jack the rate all the way up to 18% Not uncommon for someone with ruined credit. a pet who's costing an extra hundred bucks in rent No, a pet that's costing an extra $0 in rent, until the landlord finds out about it. Long term poverty creates a requirement that you bend and break the rules. You don't pay parking tickets. You don't pay phone bills. You go without insurance (health or even car). You don't get your car street legal. You don't take your dog to the vet. You don't tell your landlord you have a dog, because then he'll charge you extra. You dodge creditors. These bad decisions aren't always made so that people can still go to strip clubs and snort coke. All that shit catches up to you. I'm not gonna argue whether your poverty experience is universal enough to discredit this simulator, but the fact is, I'm kinda amazed that you don't factor any of that into these equations. To make it like there's no such thing as no-win situations when you don't have two nickels to rub together, I'm trying to wrap my head around that. To me, the simulator seemed to get something that you don't seem to. That shit creeps up on you, no matter how good of decisions you make. That it's really easy to say "Hey, there, poor person, why do you have a car, a phone, and a dog? Why aren't you living a life of total austerity so that your bootstraps last longer?" but that's a way more unrealistic perspective than any shortcomings of the simulator. I'm glad nothing terrible has happened to you, and you've had complete control over your life. That has not been a universal experience for me or the people I know.
  - lotharbot 15y ago
    > "I'm glad nothing terrible has happened to you, and you've had complete control over your life." I'm disappointed that you continue to make assumptions about my life. I'm disappointed that you continue to call me callous and uncaring and other bullshit like that just because I think this simulator is crap. I'm disappointed that you've gone off with the "strip clubs and snort coke" strawman. I'm not going to post a sob story for you, but I am going to again request that you stop making assumptions about me and those I know. You're right that the simulator did occasionally offer cheaper options. What it didn't do is offer good cheaper options when they actually do exist. The simulator was so caught up in trying to point out how much being poor sucks that it made being poor extra-sucky by sticking you with only "expensive" or "bad" options and making you choose between them. As an example, you seem to insist that the $325/month car payment is completely legitimate and not at all a reasonable thing to cut back on. As if the only options are "new car with an 18% rate", "car financed in a shady way", or "looks like you can't get to work". I've pointed out a number of in-between options, which you keep finding ways to ignore or dismiss. Similarly, the options given for dealing with the dog, the internet, and your phone were unrealistically constrained to "this option costs a lot" and "this option sucks", when there are decent options that cost less. These particular scenarios are not no-win scenarios, the game just doesn't let you choose winning options. "Shit creeps up on you", you're right -- but the better decisions you make, the more easily you're able to weather it (and the less likely you are to get into true no-win scenarios.) You call solutions I have actually used "unrealistic", and then argue that the simulator realistically shows you how hard it is to be poor. You defend bad decisions and treat good decisions I've actually made as non-options. Which goes back to Dove's earlier point -- "It's clearly written from the perspective of someone who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to do what they have to".

lotharbot 15y ago

The issue is more like, the game consistently presented options on the expensive side, with no ability to make any sort of reasonable spending cuts or prioritizations. It's not the car, in isolation. It's not the dog, in isolation. It's not the phone, in isolation. It's not the $60 internet, in isolation. It's the combination -- the supposedly hella-poor person with a higher car payment than I've ever had (despite spending more to be close to work), a higher phone bill than I've ever had, a higher internet bill than I've ever had, and a pet who's costing an extra hundred bucks in rent. And the game doesn't allow the player to cut any of these things. I have no problem with a reasonable car payment. A $6000 car with a 3 year lease and a poor 10% rate is $200/month, which isn't so bad. Even a brand new $12000 economy car on a 60 month lease doesn't cost $325/month unless you jack the rate all the way up to 18%. (Note that the game said "car payment"; presumably gas and insurance are separate.) If you're in that situation and you've got a $325/month car payment, that's a prime candidate for a cut. The same is true for $65/month phone bill, $60/month internet, and $100/month pet rent. It's not that you can't have a car, pet, phone, or broadband if you're poor. It's that taken together they comprise a set of luxuries you can't really afford in that situation. Maybe you can afford one or two -- maybe the dog is really important and you can't bear to give it up, but you can find a way to get by with slower internet. These are all candidates for being cut, yet the game treats them all as stuff you're just stuck with. That's why I have a problem with this particular "simulation". I myself am borderline poor. I've got a lot of family and friends who are poor. I've helped some move back in with parents. I've some move into, out of, and between shelters and various forms of transitional housing. Some of us have had really tight budgets before and have had to make some really tough decisions. I know what it's like. And this "simulation" devotes over 40% of my monthly budget to things that I'd consider prime candidates for cutting back on, and doesn't provide the option to cut back. That's not realism. That's propaganda.

michaelchisari 15y ago
you can find a way to get by with slower internet The simulator gave you the option to go to the library instead. It also gave you the option to put the dog to sleep for $50, or just let the dog suffer. It seems to me you're ignoring that the simulator gave you a lot of cheaper options, it just wasn't afraid to point out that the cheaper options seriously suck. unless you jack the rate all the way up to 18% Not uncommon for someone with ruined credit. a pet who's costing an extra hundred bucks in rent No, a pet that's costing an extra $0 in rent, until the landlord finds out about it. Long term poverty creates a requirement that you bend and break the rules. You don't pay parking tickets. You don't pay phone bills. You go without insurance (health or even car). You don't get your car street legal. You don't take your dog to the vet. You don't tell your landlord you have a dog, because then he'll charge you extra. You dodge creditors. These bad decisions aren't always made so that people can still go to strip clubs and snort coke. All that shit catches up to you. I'm not gonna argue whether your poverty experience is universal enough to discredit this simulator, but the fact is, I'm kinda amazed that you don't factor any of that into these equations. To make it like there's no such thing as no-win situations when you don't have two nickels to rub together, I'm trying to wrap my head around that. To me, the simulator seemed to get something that you don't seem to. That shit creeps up on you, no matter how good of decisions you make. That it's really easy to say "Hey, there, poor person, why do you have a car, a phone, and a dog? Why aren't you living a life of total austerity so that your bootstraps last longer?" but that's a way more unrealistic perspective than any shortcomings of the simulator. I'm glad nothing terrible has happened to you, and you've had complete control over your life. That has not been a universal experience for me or the people I know.
- lotharbot 15y ago
  > "I'm glad nothing terrible has happened to you, and you've had complete control over your life." I'm disappointed that you continue to make assumptions about my life. I'm disappointed that you continue to call me callous and uncaring and other bullshit like that just because I think this simulator is crap. I'm disappointed that you've gone off with the "strip clubs and snort coke" strawman. I'm not going to post a sob story for you, but I am going to again request that you stop making assumptions about me and those I know. You're right that the simulator did occasionally offer cheaper options. What it didn't do is offer good cheaper options when they actually do exist. The simulator was so caught up in trying to point out how much being poor sucks that it made being poor extra-sucky by sticking you with only "expensive" or "bad" options and making you choose between them. As an example, you seem to insist that the $325/month car payment is completely legitimate and not at all a reasonable thing to cut back on. As if the only options are "new car with an 18% rate", "car financed in a shady way", or "looks like you can't get to work". I've pointed out a number of in-between options, which you keep finding ways to ignore or dismiss. Similarly, the options given for dealing with the dog, the internet, and your phone were unrealistically constrained to "this option costs a lot" and "this option sucks", when there are decent options that cost less. These particular scenarios are not no-win scenarios, the game just doesn't let you choose winning options. "Shit creeps up on you", you're right -- but the better decisions you make, the more easily you're able to weather it (and the less likely you are to get into true no-win scenarios.) You call solutions I have actually used "unrealistic", and then argue that the simulator realistically shows you how hard it is to be poor. You defend bad decisions and treat good decisions I've actually made as non-options. Which goes back to Dove's earlier point -- "It's clearly written from the perspective of someone who doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to do what they have to".