5 ms·

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 r

by 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.

by fnimick 12y ago

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.