3 ms·
"Chose not to move" is an interesting angle. I'm pretty sure I don't support these protesters, but you're targeting the poor with your comments and I don't thin
by drhayes9 13y ago
"Chose not to move" is an interesting angle. I'm pretty sure I don't support these protesters, but you're targeting the poor with your comments and I don't think that's fair.
Here are some hypotheticals:
* I live paycheck-to-paycheck and can't afford to pay the application fees, deposit, or moving costs to move to a new place.
* My child attends a good school nearby and I'm investing in their long-term future; moving would save me money, sure, but there aren't other good schools in new neighborhoods I can afford that give me the same commute time.
* My commute to work is bad enough as it is and moving farther away from the city center makes it worse. Higher commute times are long-term stressors to the human body: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/05/your_commute_is_killing_you.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/05/your...
* My blue-collar wage has stayed the same over the last thirty years while the prices of everything else have gone up. I am, thus, poorer. Moving doesn't solve that.
* If I move away from my low-cost childcare, who takes care of my kid while I go to work long hours (especially with, say, a longer commute)?
- vacri 13y agoOn your first point, I find it's a vastly underrated concept. People who aren't poor generally handwave away the costs of moving. In addition to the ones you state, there's also things like connection costs for utility bills. I moved about once a year in my 20s. We'd generally hire a trailer for $50 and move with sweat equity, but all these little "you're now 'initialising' in a new place" costs really add up.