17 ms·

This is what happened when I drove my Mercedes to pick up food stamps

82 points by gdilla 12y ago

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
wfjackson 12y ago
>That’s the funny thing about being poor. Everyone has an opinion on it, and everyone feels entitled to share. I guess "being poor" is a relative thing that depends on background and upbringing. When someone says they're poor this image is what comes to my mind, not couple of people with a Honda and Mercedes or ones buying root beer on a deal. http://imgur.com/xzfNmNZ http://imgur.com/xzfNmNZ
- fnimick 12y ago
  This is the same BS that comes up every time this issue emerges. I remember public outrage when a news station reported that (shocker) welfare recipients had refrigerators and microwaves. Just because you have a car, or a fridge, or even a TV, doesn't mean that you're not struggling to get by. Do we really think people need to lose literally everything they have before they're worthy of sympathy?
  - mschuster91 12y ago
    > Do we really think people need to lose literally everything they have before they're worthy of sympathy? This is the essence of pure capitalism. Only when you're truly fucked up, you can expect help from others. It's disgusting.
    - DamnYuppie 12y ago
      I don't believe capitalism has a stance on helping people in need. Please point me to any information you have that may state otherwise as I would be very curious to see their reasoning.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    It reinforces the economic ignorance that stops people from recognizing that $1 spent on a capital good is better spent than $1 of a consumption good. A fridge and microwave allows you to store and prepare meals more cheaply. Buying several hot dogs and buns at once--keeping them refrigerated, and heating what you eat in the microwave--is a lot cheaper in the long run than buying one pre-warmed hot dog from the convenience store whenever you get hungry. A car that starts and operates reliably is so valuable in America that people would rather give up their houses and live in their cars than vice versa. Even the east coast, where the original municipal architecture predated cars, rather heavily relied upon horses for transportation. We have never been friendly to pedestrian travel (but pedestrian competitions are another story). If you do not have a car, you are automatically a de facto second-class citizen. The smart thing to do is buy a used car near the start of the bottom of its bathtub curve of reliability, repair it until near the end, and then stop. You then buy your next used car, and it is your backup vehicle for when your original beater finally dies. So the most cost-effective transportation solution is often to have two cars: one older beater/grocery-getter and one newer and more reliable backup. It doesn't matter how many people are in your family. If you are poor, your car may be getting close to being uneconomical to repair, and you will still need to get around whenever it is undriveable. Even the original article confirms this. Honda broke down. Mercedes was the backup. Everybody does this if they can. If your car is in any way unreliable, you secure temporary backup transportation before it breaks down. If you have money, you can rent a car for a week, or use a loaner from your repair shop. If you don't, you must have a friend or relative that can drive you to and from work until you get your car back. The outrage is as incomprehensible to me as being shocked if a poor soldier carries an expensive rifle, or if a poor electrician has an expensive fiberglass ladder instead of a cheaper aluminum one, or if a poor plumber installs expensive copper in his own house instead of PVC pipe and zinc fittings. You do not begrudge people the tools they need to do their jobs, so why would you complain about those they use to live their lives? Too many people obsess over cost and ignore value. A capital investment may cost more initially, but it definitely provides more value over its useful lifespan. So when you see a welfare recipient with a complete suite of kitchen appliances, two cars, and maybe even a television and Internet-connected computer, you can tell yourself that there is a person who can bounce themselves back out of the safety net someday, and probably sooner rather than later. Even if they don't, they might be able to throw a child out far enough for them to lower a rope back down. When you see the person that doesn't even have a grocery cart, that person is the one that will be costing the system the most money in the long run. Suggesting that people sell the things that help them survive and save money is absolutely the worst thing you can tell them. So you keep the Mercedes. Start looking out for a used car to replace the old Honda that broke down. If you get tired of people giving you funny looks, get a can of rust-colored automotive paint and simulate some old body damage with it. Above all, you don't make stupid economic decisions because the people around you can't recognize a smart one.
- adventured 12y ago
  There is an almost unfathomable difference. I grew up "first world poor" in Appalachia and was approximately a hundred times better off than the man in that photo. I had a modest roof over my head, clothes, toys, food, utilities, a big yard, and among the best public schools in the country. My mother used food stamps at one point in the late 1980s when things were bad. Bad is a relative term.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    It's interesting what (the generic) you think of as poor. On one hand it is a lot of the homeless downtown. On the other, I could 20 miles from a state capital working Fire / EMS, and be down dirt, overgrown trails to people living in double wides that honestly would be condemned on any number of levels, from health and safety, hygiene, let alone "how the hell is that still standing". I saw families of rats in living rooms, tarps over ceiling holes, holes through the floor to bare dirt beneath, people using swamp coolers and outdoor 'fridges' due to a lack of electricity... most of this is never seen, and never expected.
- Jtsummers 12y ago
  Poor has always been relative and had extremes. Her story sounds like the upper end of poor [1]. They had no cash, stuck with a mountain of debt (relative to their significantly reduced income) and two children in poor health, all on $25k per year income. In the US, that's poor. [1] Meaning, with resolution to their house situation, they might've been ok. But that's a huge expenditure each month with a risk of homelessness if they fail to make the payments.
  - maxsilver 12y ago
    Yep! Even if the two children were in perfect health, four people on $25k is still very poor. (Four people on $25k/year is nearly at the poverty line of $23,580 - http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm )
  - xrange 12y ago
    They mention her job was $25k, but shouldn't he have qualified for unemployment insurance payments? For at least the first year or so?
    - Jtsummers 12y ago
      Possibly, I've never had to deal with unemployment insurance so I have no idea what qualifies someone or how much you receive as compensation or for how long.
      - genwin 12y ago
        In my state the only qualifications are that you paid the insurance for the last x months, and didn't quit or get fired for good reason.
- shwinnabego 12y ago
  That image makes me think of poverty, rather than being "poor." Although, I make this distinction in my head.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  Your image of what "poor" is exists in this country; it just manifests itself in different ways and is largely ignored by, well, just about everybody (who isn't poor). I grew up in neighborhoods where, while not apparently starving as the person in your image, we were certainly undernourished and stressed in many other ways. What you "guess" with respect to "being poor" is, to be perfectly blunt, a guess made from apparent ignorance (not stupidity or intellectual ability; ignorance can be remedied by education). Setting your rather narrow and shallow understanding of what "poor" is aside, the subject of this article is poor by American standards, and at least the way I read it the point isn't "pity us because we're on food stamps" so much as it is that the attitude of "being poor ought to be an humiliating condition" is ingrained in America.
- anon4 12y ago
  That's not poor, that's absolutely impoverished. Poor doesn't mean you can't afford the basic necessities to live like a human being - the guy in your picture doesn't live like a human being, he lives like trash. Living like a human being doesn't just mean having two arms, two legs and breathing, it means living like everyone else - apartment, tables, chairs, a toilet, fresh running water, electricity, fridge, TV, PC, internet (well maybe not in america with your internet prices). Poor isn't when you're with one foot in the grave, poor is when you have little money and a low income. That doesn't immediately make you a background character in a Dickensian novel who dies of hunger on the streets of New York. That doesn't mean having a fridge to store your food in is some frivolous expense - fridges are a basic necessity. A PC is a basic necessity if you want to get anywhere. What else would you deny people just so you can label them poor and feel nice and fuzzy in your heart knowing you're giving a tuppence to a guy who'll die a poetic death on the street? Clothes? Beds? Houses? Additionally, go fuck yourself.
  - wfjackson 12y ago
    >Additionally, go fuck yourself. I am sorry that I am a little biased. My grandfather died in middle age because he couldn't afford medical care. My mom once picked up a snake instead of a pen while she was studying in the dark by candlelight because they couldn't afford electricity. So, yes, fuck me for thinking someone should've saved money for the future by buying a cheaper car instead of driving around in a Mercedes and then expecting hardworking taxpayers who themselves are struggling and making do with an old Kia, to foot the bill when hard times roll in. I am surprised you're not advocating the government giving them a Tesla so that they can get out of their depression and feel better about being suddenly "poor". If there was no WIC or food stamps, would they have sold the Mercedes to feed their twin babies and tried to use only their Honda? People should be more fiscally responsible. But, yeah, fuck me for thinking so.
    - logfromblammo 12y ago
      You don't save money by trading in the highest-value capital good that you own and using the proceeds as operating funds. You dump the house. The glaringly obvious best move in the story is to yield the deed to the house to the creditors, get bankruptcy protection for any deficiency, and use your former mortgage payment on a smaller apartment and upgraded renter's insurance. You get rid of everything that doesn't help you make money or help you keep it, and keep everything that does until someone comes and takes it from you. Never eat the last of your seed corn. The car is still worth more to them than any money they could get from selling it, and they didn't have to pay extra to keep it. I wouldn't say "fuck you" for your suggestion, but I do think that it was ill-considered, and that a depressingly large number of people would agree that it was a good idea. I am also curious to know if your mother was ever able to train the snake well enough to produce recognizable writing with it.
- nilkn 12y ago
  I don't know if you did this intentionally, but what you just wrote is a great example of what the quote is referring to. You've decided that since they're not literally dying from starvation then they deserve no sympathy and no help. I for one would prefer to live in a world where poverty of the sort seen in your picture doesn't exist. Part of achieving that is being willing to help out others when they hit hard times but aren't necessarily on the verge of death. Raising the standard of living means just that: it means raising the base expectation of what life as a human being entails. When someone faces trouble and falls below that base expectation, others jump in to help. The worst sin this couple did, as far as I can tell, is they bought some root beer with food stamps and didn't sell a car which they very much needed for reliable transportation. They used the government help when they needed it, then regained employment and are once again self-sufficient. This is exactly what these social services are for. Let's suppose they got no help at all, like you seem to think would have been fair. They probably would have had to sell the car in order to feed their children (and themselves). They would have soon lost all modes of personal transportation, in fact, because their Honda broke down (and are you going to spend cash to repair it when you need every dime you have for food?). Therefore, they would have relied almost entirely on public transportation. The difficulty of finding new employment just doubled, meaning that the length of time they face poverty probably also just doubled. But selling that car didn't fix the fundamental mathematical problem of "income < expenses." It only provided temporary capital at the expense of personal transportation and probably employment, meaning it actually exacerbated the real problem, which is increasing income rather than immediate cash reserves. Oh, and by the way, back when they were making $120k, and now again that they have decent income again, they were (and now are again) paying so that others can receive the same help in similar situations.
alexeisadeski3 12y ago
"Food stamps" are so obnoxious. Just cut them a check or better yet hand out cash.
- 67726e 12y ago
  Would it work better in the end? Possibly. Are you going to have legions of people up in arms about welfare queens using their hard-earned tax dollars to buy crack? Absolutely.
  - wldcordeiro 12y ago
    People already complain about them trading EBT funds for drugs.
    - ToastyMallows 12y ago
      Yes but it's illegal. Give people plain old cash and you can't restrict what it's used to buy.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Economists regularly ask which one gets better results. These days they are trending towards direct payment (rather than "in kind"). It sure seems to be the right answer in third-world countries. I'm of the opinion that there should be a small amount of no-questions-asked assistance available, so people don't have to prove to themselves that they are poor in order to receive stuff, but of a limited quality/quantity that people of means will voluntarily not bother. That's an entirely separate discussion, though.
    - 67726e 12y ago
      I'm not doubting the efficacy or attempting to discredit it. Rather, I am commenting on the political feasibility or the lack thereof. I grew up with a well-off mother and a poor father. I've rubbed shoulders in country clubs and seen people trade EBT for anything and everything illicit. My feelings and expectations of the poor are still extremely negative despite all of this. Those of the folks who have never had to experience it even more so. You would have a hard time of switching EBT to cash in a "moderate" political climate, say nothing of the current "Fly this plane into the ground" era.
xrange 12y ago
>Were we supposed to trade it in for a crappier car we’d have to make payments on? No, you should have sold the Mercedes because you already had one other car, and two cars and their insurance and upkeep seems like an unnecessary luxury for two unemployed people on food stamps.
- mschuster91 12y ago
  Two people who want jobs need two cars in America, if the stories on HN about the state of public transport are remotely true. It's bad enough in Germany where nearly every employer expects "mobility" (i.e. driver's license+car), and that with our quite generous mass transit. US is definitely worse.
  - xrange 12y ago
    From the byline: >Darlena Cunha is a former television producer turned stay-at-home mom to twin girls. ...maybe someone from the Boston area can chime in on the state of public transportation.
    - Jtsummers 12y ago
      This article is about their situation from 2008/2009.
    - ohashi 12y ago
      You must be confused. Stay-at-home mom doesn't mean can't leave the home. In many parts of America, you cannot go or get anywhere without a car. That includes basic things, like grocery shopping.
      - xrange 12y ago
        I guess I don't want to belabor this too much, and maybe this tags me as an old geezer, but I have personally known families with children, who only owned one automobile. One person can drive the other person to work, and then drive the car around for the rest of the day, and then pick them up after work. Of course we don't know their particular details, like maybe they've got a 50 mile one way commute (which in itself would be crazy for a $25k/yr job).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
hoopism 12y ago
mrmoneymustache.com If you own two cars, one being a mercedes (don't care it's old) and are on foodstamps then you may want to read that site. It's not a knock. But you can live a lot cheaper than you think... and still save money... and be happy. REVISE: No problem with public assistance. But I did want to emphasize that there are people who are very happy living on wages far below what these two were capable of.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nilkn 12y ago
  That site might have helped them more before they were faced with sudden financial difficulties. Since they'd already paid for it in full, I don't really know how much it would have helped to sell off the Mercedes. They could have traded it in for a cheaper car and got a few grand, but that would have probably taken a fair amount of time and effort -- would it have really been worth it? It's also worth noting that the low-tier Mercedes models are not much more expensive than a Honda Accord. To be fair, though, regarding their lifestyle before the crisis, a $250k home on a $120k income is very conservative by most modern standards. They were leveraging their income far less than is typical in the Bay Area in fact.
  - FireBeyond 12y ago
    "We're struggling to feed ourselves and our children!" "but that would have probably taken a fair amount of time and effort -- would it have really been worth it?" After the first statement? Yes. Heaven forbid it takes time and effort to try to improve your situation.
    - nilkn 12y ago
      This is effectively a non-response. Focusing on regaining employment would be a FAR better way to improve the situation, and it's not even clear if the car was worth enough to pay for a decent replacement. Just because it's a Mercedes does not mean that it magically retains its value or even that it was that expensive to begin with. If they are in such a bad situation that they have to sell off their car in order to pay for some meals, then clearly they needed the support they got. Giving up personal transportation in exchange for food is not even remotely a solution to the problem. It actually makes it far more difficult to regain employment (their Honda broke down, remember?), and the cash from the car sale is only a temporary bandaid--it does nothing at all to solve the fundamental problem of "income < expenses." It's beyond me how you could think that someone who is in such trouble that they have to sell off all means of personal transportation so their children don't die of starvation would not deserve some sort of aid. In any case, the couple in this story, having regained a comfortable income, is now paying taxes every month so that if you face severe financial trouble you too can receive some aid without having to immediately liquidate every asset you own so your family doesn't die, even those assets that are critical to finding a real resolution of your difficulties.
CWuestefeld 12y ago
President Obama’s programs — from the extended unemployment benefits to the tax-free allowance for short-selling a home we couldn’t afford... In what way are these programs "President Obama's"? Shouldn't these be considered "The Congress's programs"? I really worry about the degree to which my fellow citizens seem to believe that the President does/should act like a monarch.
- ToastyMallows 12y ago
  If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I am), the President pushed for these things to be passed, that's why people often say "President Obama's programs" or something similar.
  - bitJericho 12y ago
    Wic, foodstamps, and many many other government programs have been around for far longer than Obama.
    - ToastyMallows 12y ago
      Agreed, I was merely commenting on how media often says "Obama's this" or "Obama's bill", because he's often the one that pushes (in this case) Democratic congressmen to introduce a bill.
- techpeace 12y ago
  The extended unemployment benefits could rightly be called the President's, as he proposed and fought for the passage of the extension. The second is, I believe, a reference to the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, which expired last year, and our current Do Nothing Congress has failed to extend: http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-harney-20140608-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-harney-2014...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
socalnate1 12y ago
"That’s the funny thing about being poor. Everyone has an opinion on it, and everyone feels entitled to share." Wow, these comments are really proving her point.
- hoopism 12y ago
  Everyone should be entitled to share their opinion. If we're going to choose to address this as a society via public funds it ought to be a matter of public discourse. That doesn't mean people should be tolerated for inflammatory views... but certainly warrants some healthy debate.
OrwellianChild 12y ago
The shame and judgement placed on the woman for being both poor and in possession of a Mercedes really demonstrates a disconnect that people have between the signals of wealth and actual wealth... The "2003 Mercedes Kompressor" talked about in the article could be one of two models: Model $(2003) $(2014 CPI) 2014 Value C230 Coupe/Sedan ~$28k ~$36k ~$5k SLK230 Convertible ~$40k ~$52k ~$7k On their combined income (~$120k), my suspicion is that it was the C230 and not the SLK... Note that both are worth very little today. They're just old, crappy cars like any other. Your old Honda may in fact have fewer mechanical issues at this point. People revere the badge even on older vehicles where it no longer means much. If the middle-aged Mercedes they had was running and reliable, they were prudent to keep it. The cost of trading down to an unknown car with potential unknown mechanical issues would likely not save them any money. It's possible it could end up costing more. When you are cash flow poor, reducing out-of-pocket expenses is the first priority. Liquidating assets to raise cash is a quick one-time fix, it's being done at a time when you have no leverage with which to get maximum value out of those asset sales, and does nothing to resolve the larger problem of income < expenses. It is unfortunate, I think, that however prudent and reasonable their choices, the cognitive dissonance created by the sight of the "luxury" car at the food stamp offices is going put them at odds with public opinion.
- kamaal 12y ago
  Wealth signals matter. By wealth signals I mean a person's standard of living. If you are driving a Mercedes you will be perceived as rich. I don't know much about the culture in US, but in my country(India) there is no way you will be considered poor or even middle class if you own a car. Let alone own a Mercedes. Why? That's not very difficult to understand. If you own a car, which falls between the big money and small money its generally an indication that you are doing this on top of your existing savings. Any reasonable person when they first start working should aim to do the following things in order. Try and eliminate any outstanding debt, Save enough money for the rainy days, and then comes the next most essential commodity- a house and if you are done with that- a car. They way I see, a lot of poverty issues in the US seem to arise from mismanagement of one's money. If you don't have a home, and don't have a large cache of savings and have debt on top of all this, buying a luxury car on debt again comes out straight as mismanagement of money.
naturalethic 12y ago
wtf subreddit is this again?

82 points by gdilla 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

>That’s the funny thing about being poor. Everyone has an opinion on it, and everyone feels entitled to share. I guess "being poor" is a relative thing that depends on background and upbringing. When someone says they're poor this image is what comes to my mind, not couple of people with a Honda and Mercedes or ones buying root beer on a deal. http://imgur.com/xzfNmNZ http://imgur.com/xzfNmNZ

fnimick 12y ago
This is the same BS that comes up every time this issue emerges. I remember public outrage when a news station reported that (shocker) welfare recipients had refrigerators and microwaves. Just because you have a car, or a fridge, or even a TV, doesn't mean that you're not struggling to get by. Do we really think people need to lose literally everything they have before they're worthy of sympathy?
- mschuster91 12y ago
  > Do we really think people need to lose literally everything they have before they're worthy of sympathy? This is the essence of pure capitalism. Only when you're truly fucked up, you can expect help from others. It's disgusting.
  - DamnYuppie 12y ago
    I don't believe capitalism has a stance on helping people in need. Please point me to any information you have that may state otherwise as I would be very curious to see their reasoning.
- logfromblammo 12y ago
  It reinforces the economic ignorance that stops people from recognizing that $1 spent on a capital good is better spent than $1 of a consumption good. A fridge and microwave allows you to store and prepare meals more cheaply. Buying several hot dogs and buns at once--keeping them refrigerated, and heating what you eat in the microwave--is a lot cheaper in the long run than buying one pre-warmed hot dog from the convenience store whenever you get hungry. A car that starts and operates reliably is so valuable in America that people would rather give up their houses and live in their cars than vice versa. Even the east coast, where the original municipal architecture predated cars, rather heavily relied upon horses for transportation. We have never been friendly to pedestrian travel (but pedestrian competitions are another story). If you do not have a car, you are automatically a de facto second-class citizen. The smart thing to do is buy a used car near the start of the bottom of its bathtub curve of reliability, repair it until near the end, and then stop. You then buy your next used car, and it is your backup vehicle for when your original beater finally dies. So the most cost-effective transportation solution is often to have two cars: one older beater/grocery-getter and one newer and more reliable backup. It doesn't matter how many people are in your family. If you are poor, your car may be getting close to being uneconomical to repair, and you will still need to get around whenever it is undriveable. Even the original article confirms this. Honda broke down. Mercedes was the backup. Everybody does this if they can. If your car is in any way unreliable, you secure temporary backup transportation before it breaks down. If you have money, you can rent a car for a week, or use a loaner from your repair shop. If you don't, you must have a friend or relative that can drive you to and from work until you get your car back. The outrage is as incomprehensible to me as being shocked if a poor soldier carries an expensive rifle, or if a poor electrician has an expensive fiberglass ladder instead of a cheaper aluminum one, or if a poor plumber installs expensive copper in his own house instead of PVC pipe and zinc fittings. You do not begrudge people the tools they need to do their jobs, so why would you complain about those they use to live their lives? Too many people obsess over cost and ignore value. A capital investment may cost more initially, but it definitely provides more value over its useful lifespan. So when you see a welfare recipient with a complete suite of kitchen appliances, two cars, and maybe even a television and Internet-connected computer, you can tell yourself that there is a person who can bounce themselves back out of the safety net someday, and probably sooner rather than later. Even if they don't, they might be able to throw a child out far enough for them to lower a rope back down. When you see the person that doesn't even have a grocery cart, that person is the one that will be costing the system the most money in the long run. Suggesting that people sell the things that help them survive and save money is absolutely the worst thing you can tell them. So you keep the Mercedes. Start looking out for a used car to replace the old Honda that broke down. If you get tired of people giving you funny looks, get a can of rust-colored automotive paint and simulate some old body damage with it. Above all, you don't make stupid economic decisions because the people around you can't recognize a smart one.
adventured 12y ago
There is an almost unfathomable difference. I grew up "first world poor" in Appalachia and was approximately a hundred times better off than the man in that photo. I had a modest roof over my head, clothes, toys, food, utilities, a big yard, and among the best public schools in the country. My mother used food stamps at one point in the late 1980s when things were bad. Bad is a relative term.
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  It's interesting what (the generic) you think of as poor. On one hand it is a lot of the homeless downtown. On the other, I could 20 miles from a state capital working Fire / EMS, and be down dirt, overgrown trails to people living in double wides that honestly would be condemned on any number of levels, from health and safety, hygiene, let alone "how the hell is that still standing". I saw families of rats in living rooms, tarps over ceiling holes, holes through the floor to bare dirt beneath, people using swamp coolers and outdoor 'fridges' due to a lack of electricity... most of this is never seen, and never expected.
Jtsummers 12y ago
Poor has always been relative and had extremes. Her story sounds like the upper end of poor [1]. They had no cash, stuck with a mountain of debt (relative to their significantly reduced income) and two children in poor health, all on $25k per year income. In the US, that's poor. [1] Meaning, with resolution to their house situation, they might've been ok. But that's a huge expenditure each month with a risk of homelessness if they fail to make the payments.
- maxsilver 12y ago
  Yep! Even if the two children were in perfect health, four people on $25k is still very poor. (Four people on $25k/year is nearly at the poverty line of $23,580 - http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm )
- xrange 12y ago
  They mention her job was $25k, but shouldn't he have qualified for unemployment insurance payments? For at least the first year or so?
  - Jtsummers 12y ago
    Possibly, I've never had to deal with unemployment insurance so I have no idea what qualifies someone or how much you receive as compensation or for how long.
    - genwin 12y ago
      In my state the only qualifications are that you paid the insurance for the last x months, and didn't quit or get fired for good reason.
shwinnabego 12y ago
That image makes me think of poverty, rather than being "poor." Although, I make this distinction in my head.
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
Your image of what "poor" is exists in this country; it just manifests itself in different ways and is largely ignored by, well, just about everybody (who isn't poor). I grew up in neighborhoods where, while not apparently starving as the person in your image, we were certainly undernourished and stressed in many other ways. What you "guess" with respect to "being poor" is, to be perfectly blunt, a guess made from apparent ignorance (not stupidity or intellectual ability; ignorance can be remedied by education). Setting your rather narrow and shallow understanding of what "poor" is aside, the subject of this article is poor by American standards, and at least the way I read it the point isn't "pity us because we're on food stamps" so much as it is that the attitude of "being poor ought to be an humiliating condition" is ingrained in America.
anon4 12y ago
That's not poor, that's absolutely impoverished. Poor doesn't mean you can't afford the basic necessities to live like a human being - the guy in your picture doesn't live like a human being, he lives like trash. Living like a human being doesn't just mean having two arms, two legs and breathing, it means living like everyone else - apartment, tables, chairs, a toilet, fresh running water, electricity, fridge, TV, PC, internet (well maybe not in america with your internet prices). Poor isn't when you're with one foot in the grave, poor is when you have little money and a low income. That doesn't immediately make you a background character in a Dickensian novel who dies of hunger on the streets of New York. That doesn't mean having a fridge to store your food in is some frivolous expense - fridges are a basic necessity. A PC is a basic necessity if you want to get anywhere. What else would you deny people just so you can label them poor and feel nice and fuzzy in your heart knowing you're giving a tuppence to a guy who'll die a poetic death on the street? Clothes? Beds? Houses? Additionally, go fuck yourself.
- wfjackson 12y ago
  >Additionally, go fuck yourself. I am sorry that I am a little biased. My grandfather died in middle age because he couldn't afford medical care. My mom once picked up a snake instead of a pen while she was studying in the dark by candlelight because they couldn't afford electricity. So, yes, fuck me for thinking someone should've saved money for the future by buying a cheaper car instead of driving around in a Mercedes and then expecting hardworking taxpayers who themselves are struggling and making do with an old Kia, to foot the bill when hard times roll in. I am surprised you're not advocating the government giving them a Tesla so that they can get out of their depression and feel better about being suddenly "poor". If there was no WIC or food stamps, would they have sold the Mercedes to feed their twin babies and tried to use only their Honda? People should be more fiscally responsible. But, yeah, fuck me for thinking so.
  - logfromblammo 12y ago
    You don't save money by trading in the highest-value capital good that you own and using the proceeds as operating funds. You dump the house. The glaringly obvious best move in the story is to yield the deed to the house to the creditors, get bankruptcy protection for any deficiency, and use your former mortgage payment on a smaller apartment and upgraded renter's insurance. You get rid of everything that doesn't help you make money or help you keep it, and keep everything that does until someone comes and takes it from you. Never eat the last of your seed corn. The car is still worth more to them than any money they could get from selling it, and they didn't have to pay extra to keep it. I wouldn't say "fuck you" for your suggestion, but I do think that it was ill-considered, and that a depressingly large number of people would agree that it was a good idea. I am also curious to know if your mother was ever able to train the snake well enough to produce recognizable writing with it.
nilkn 12y ago
I don't know if you did this intentionally, but what you just wrote is a great example of what the quote is referring to. You've decided that since they're not literally dying from starvation then they deserve no sympathy and no help. I for one would prefer to live in a world where poverty of the sort seen in your picture doesn't exist. Part of achieving that is being willing to help out others when they hit hard times but aren't necessarily on the verge of death. Raising the standard of living means just that: it means raising the base expectation of what life as a human being entails. When someone faces trouble and falls below that base expectation, others jump in to help. The worst sin this couple did, as far as I can tell, is they bought some root beer with food stamps and didn't sell a car which they very much needed for reliable transportation. They used the government help when they needed it, then regained employment and are once again self-sufficient. This is exactly what these social services are for. Let's suppose they got no help at all, like you seem to think would have been fair. They probably would have had to sell the car in order to feed their children (and themselves). They would have soon lost all modes of personal transportation, in fact, because their Honda broke down (and are you going to spend cash to repair it when you need every dime you have for food?). Therefore, they would have relied almost entirely on public transportation. The difficulty of finding new employment just doubled, meaning that the length of time they face poverty probably also just doubled. But selling that car didn't fix the fundamental mathematical problem of "income < expenses." It only provided temporary capital at the expense of personal transportation and probably employment, meaning it actually exacerbated the real problem, which is increasing income rather than immediate cash reserves. Oh, and by the way, back when they were making $120k, and now again that they have decent income again, they were (and now are again) paying so that others can receive the same help in similar situations.

alexeisadeski3 12y ago

"Food stamps" are so obnoxious. Just cut them a check or better yet hand out cash.

67726e 12y ago
Would it work better in the end? Possibly. Are you going to have legions of people up in arms about welfare queens using their hard-earned tax dollars to buy crack? Absolutely.
- wldcordeiro 12y ago
  People already complain about them trading EBT funds for drugs.
  - ToastyMallows 12y ago
    Yes but it's illegal. Give people plain old cash and you can't restrict what it's used to buy.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Economists regularly ask which one gets better results. These days they are trending towards direct payment (rather than "in kind"). It sure seems to be the right answer in third-world countries. I'm of the opinion that there should be a small amount of no-questions-asked assistance available, so people don't have to prove to themselves that they are poor in order to receive stuff, but of a limited quality/quantity that people of means will voluntarily not bother. That's an entirely separate discussion, though.
  - 67726e 12y ago
    I'm not doubting the efficacy or attempting to discredit it. Rather, I am commenting on the political feasibility or the lack thereof. I grew up with a well-off mother and a poor father. I've rubbed shoulders in country clubs and seen people trade EBT for anything and everything illicit. My feelings and expectations of the poor are still extremely negative despite all of this. Those of the folks who have never had to experience it even more so. You would have a hard time of switching EBT to cash in a "moderate" political climate, say nothing of the current "Fly this plane into the ground" era.

xrange 12y ago

>Were we supposed to trade it in for a crappier car we’d have to make payments on? No, you should have sold the Mercedes because you already had one other car, and two cars and their insurance and upkeep seems like an unnecessary luxury for two unemployed people on food stamps.

mschuster91 12y ago
Two people who want jobs need two cars in America, if the stories on HN about the state of public transport are remotely true. It's bad enough in Germany where nearly every employer expects "mobility" (i.e. driver's license+car), and that with our quite generous mass transit. US is definitely worse.
- xrange 12y ago
  From the byline: >Darlena Cunha is a former television producer turned stay-at-home mom to twin girls. ...maybe someone from the Boston area can chime in on the state of public transportation.
  - Jtsummers 12y ago
    This article is about their situation from 2008/2009.
  - ohashi 12y ago
    You must be confused. Stay-at-home mom doesn't mean can't leave the home. In many parts of America, you cannot go or get anywhere without a car. That includes basic things, like grocery shopping.
    - xrange 12y ago
      I guess I don't want to belabor this too much, and maybe this tags me as an old geezer, but I have personally known families with children, who only owned one automobile. One person can drive the other person to work, and then drive the car around for the rest of the day, and then pick them up after work. Of course we don't know their particular details, like maybe they've got a 50 mile one way commute (which in itself would be crazy for a $25k/yr job).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

hoopism 12y ago

mrmoneymustache.com If you own two cars, one being a mercedes (don't care it's old) and are on foodstamps then you may want to read that site. It's not a knock. But you can live a lot cheaper than you think... and still save money... and be happy. REVISE: No problem with public assistance. But I did want to emphasize that there are people who are very happy living on wages far below what these two were capable of.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nilkn 12y ago
That site might have helped them more before they were faced with sudden financial difficulties. Since they'd already paid for it in full, I don't really know how much it would have helped to sell off the Mercedes. They could have traded it in for a cheaper car and got a few grand, but that would have probably taken a fair amount of time and effort -- would it have really been worth it? It's also worth noting that the low-tier Mercedes models are not much more expensive than a Honda Accord. To be fair, though, regarding their lifestyle before the crisis, a $250k home on a $120k income is very conservative by most modern standards. They were leveraging their income far less than is typical in the Bay Area in fact.
- FireBeyond 12y ago
  "We're struggling to feed ourselves and our children!" "but that would have probably taken a fair amount of time and effort -- would it have really been worth it?" After the first statement? Yes. Heaven forbid it takes time and effort to try to improve your situation.
  - nilkn 12y ago
    This is effectively a non-response. Focusing on regaining employment would be a FAR better way to improve the situation, and it's not even clear if the car was worth enough to pay for a decent replacement. Just because it's a Mercedes does not mean that it magically retains its value or even that it was that expensive to begin with. If they are in such a bad situation that they have to sell off their car in order to pay for some meals, then clearly they needed the support they got. Giving up personal transportation in exchange for food is not even remotely a solution to the problem. It actually makes it far more difficult to regain employment (their Honda broke down, remember?), and the cash from the car sale is only a temporary bandaid--it does nothing at all to solve the fundamental problem of "income < expenses." It's beyond me how you could think that someone who is in such trouble that they have to sell off all means of personal transportation so their children don't die of starvation would not deserve some sort of aid. In any case, the couple in this story, having regained a comfortable income, is now paying taxes every month so that if you face severe financial trouble you too can receive some aid without having to immediately liquidate every asset you own so your family doesn't die, even those assets that are critical to finding a real resolution of your difficulties.

CWuestefeld 12y ago

President Obama’s programs — from the extended unemployment benefits to the tax-free allowance for short-selling a home we couldn’t afford... In what way are these programs "President Obama's"? Shouldn't these be considered "The Congress's programs"? I really worry about the degree to which my fellow citizens seem to believe that the President does/should act like a monarch.

ToastyMallows 12y ago
If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I am), the President pushed for these things to be passed, that's why people often say "President Obama's programs" or something similar.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Wic, foodstamps, and many many other government programs have been around for far longer than Obama.
  - ToastyMallows 12y ago
    Agreed, I was merely commenting on how media often says "Obama's this" or "Obama's bill", because he's often the one that pushes (in this case) Democratic congressmen to introduce a bill.
techpeace 12y ago
The extended unemployment benefits could rightly be called the President's, as he proposed and fought for the passage of the extension. The second is, I believe, a reference to the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, which expired last year, and our current Do Nothing Congress has failed to extend: http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-harney-20140608-story.html http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-harney-2014...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

socalnate1 12y ago

"That’s the funny thing about being poor. Everyone has an opinion on it, and everyone feels entitled to share." Wow, these comments are really proving her point.

hoopism 12y ago
Everyone should be entitled to share their opinion. If we're going to choose to address this as a society via public funds it ought to be a matter of public discourse. That doesn't mean people should be tolerated for inflammatory views... but certainly warrants some healthy debate.

OrwellianChild 12y ago

The shame and judgement placed on the woman for being both poor and in possession of a Mercedes really demonstrates a disconnect that people have between the signals of wealth and actual wealth... The "2003 Mercedes Kompressor" talked about in the article could be one of two models: Model $(2003) $(2014 CPI) 2014 Value C230 Coupe/Sedan ~$28k ~$36k ~$5k SLK230 Convertible ~$40k ~$52k ~$7k On their combined income (~$120k), my suspicion is that it was the C230 and not the SLK... Note that both are worth very little today. They're just old, crappy cars like any other. Your old Honda may in fact have fewer mechanical issues at this point. People revere the badge even on older vehicles where it no longer means much. If the middle-aged Mercedes they had was running and reliable, they were prudent to keep it. The cost of trading down to an unknown car with potential unknown mechanical issues would likely not save them any money. It's possible it could end up costing more. When you are cash flow poor, reducing out-of-pocket expenses is the first priority. Liquidating assets to raise cash is a quick one-time fix, it's being done at a time when you have no leverage with which to get maximum value out of those asset sales, and does nothing to resolve the larger problem of income < expenses. It is unfortunate, I think, that however prudent and reasonable their choices, the cognitive dissonance created by the sight of the "luxury" car at the food stamp offices is going put them at odds with public opinion.

kamaal 12y ago
Wealth signals matter. By wealth signals I mean a person's standard of living. If you are driving a Mercedes you will be perceived as rich. I don't know much about the culture in US, but in my country(India) there is no way you will be considered poor or even middle class if you own a car. Let alone own a Mercedes. Why? That's not very difficult to understand. If you own a car, which falls between the big money and small money its generally an indication that you are doing this on top of your existing savings. Any reasonable person when they first start working should aim to do the following things in order. Try and eliminate any outstanding debt, Save enough money for the rainy days, and then comes the next most essential commodity- a house and if you are done with that- a car. They way I see, a lot of poverty issues in the US seem to arise from mismanagement of one's money. If you don't have a home, and don't have a large cache of savings and have debt on top of all this, buying a luxury car on debt again comes out straight as mismanagement of money.

naturalethic 12y ago

wtf subreddit is this again?