2 ms·
The "welfare recipients with plasma TVs" is a common trope that comes up every election, but is (almost) entirely untrue. I've actually lived on the wrong side
by potatolicious 13y ago
The "welfare recipients with plasma TVs" is a common trope that comes up every election, but is (almost) entirely untrue.
I've actually lived on the wrong side of the tracks in a poverty-stricken industrial city.
The reality is that most people don't have big screen TVs. The home of the average poor person that I've seen, welfare or otherwise, is pretty damned frugal. The few that do - and they do exist - finance these luxuries via rent-to-own shops and loans.
You know you're in a poor part of town when suddenly all the payday loan places and rent-to-own places pop up.
As one might expect, these luxuries never actually last very long. Not only do these people not have the actual financial ability to afford them, but they acquired them on predatory rates (either loan or rent-to-own terms). These items are repo'ed quickly.
So, in summary, the bulk of the poor don't live on expensive hardware. There are some that (unwisely) acquire expensive hardware with the help of predatory lenders, but don't get to keep it.
The myth of the ever-idle welfare recipient, munching cheetos while hanging out in front of their big screen TV, is very much just that: a myth.
- ewoodrich 13y agoI haven't (yet) had the need to rely on government benefits, but I grew up in a rural town with a "gilded" quality of class division. The most poor people I knew would honestly save up two weeks to eat out at Subway. It gave me a lot of perspective to see that what was my staple lunch-break food could actually be a luxury to another family. Obviously, anecdotes don't prove the point, but of the families I've known in that situation, you are completely right. They were far more focused on getting their kids to school with full stomachs than fancy electronics or other status symbols.