7 ms·

Part of me is disgusted that this business is allowed to operate in this manner. However, the sensible side is frustrated that these people aren't doing basic

by monksy 12y ago

Part of me is disgusted that this business is allowed to operate in this manner. However, the sensible side is frustrated that these people aren't doing basic math. These people are choosing to buy something that they can't afford. Do they need these items? Does anyone need a couch? Does anyone NEED a TV/wedding ring? No. You can live without it. End the end: All I got from this article was: "Look at these people who don't realize where they stand financially and refuse to accept that it's not where they'd like to be."

nkozyra 12y ago
> Part of me is disgusted that this business is allowed to operate in this manner. I understand this sentiment, but it's risk mitigation. As the article points out, there are no options for these people outside of this. It's serving a market and it's doing so in a way that reduces the risk - in some ways for both parties. Is it a smart move on the part of customers? I think it's hard to argue that it is, but I don't know that it's necessarily the fault of these businesses. If anything, it's a better move than going to an Amscot or getting a subprime credit card, because you're not wrecked financially nor is your credit ruined necessarily.
- bluedino 12y ago
  >> As the article points out, there are no options for these people outside of this. Going without a 60" TV or iPad isn't an option?
  - plorg 12y ago
    The TV, no, but it is entirely possible that the iPad is being used for internet access. At this point in time a person without internet access is at a serious disadvantage to the larger population.
    - S4M 12y ago
      How about buying second hand computers or laptops?
      - JetSpiegel 12y ago
        The amount of computers just thrown away should be enough.
    - tgb 12y ago
      It would take about 11 weeks of payments to save up for the ipad to get one from eBay instead ($230 on ebay for 2nd gen 32gb model, 19 dollars a month for 72 weeks from buddy's). I wouldn't want to do without the internet for that long, but if they cancelled their internet for a month (which they wouldn't need without the ipad in this hypothetical) they'd be able to buy in maybe 2 months. Is two months of having to use the internet from the library really worth spending $1000 on when you can't even afford a $230 ipad? Sorry, but there are other options.
    - notahacker 12y ago
      What proportion of Buddy's customers need home internet access via a second hand iPad2 immediately (ultimate cost $1400) as opposed to internet access via second-hand Android tablet (cost <$100) after waiting a month? I'd be surprised if it was double digits.
  - arenaninja 12y ago
    I'm with you on TV, not so much on the iPad (or other device that lets you access the internet). I don't own either, but I do own a desktop. Homework with an e-mail component is increasingly onerous, my niece gets it all the time, but she has no internet access at home (in Los Angeles), save for her phone. At best anecdotal evidence, but it does make me empathize with people who suddenly find themselves in need of an expensive piece of electronic equipment to be able to function in modern society. You might (rightly) point out that there are alternatives for the iPad, but how many people are really aware of them? A lot of people don't even call a tablet 'tablet', they call it an 'iPad'
  - cookiecaper 12y ago
    Those aren't the only things that people rent to own. Most people rent basic household furnishings like couches, mattresses, and tables. Aaron's et al will offer other things to try to upsell you, like iPads, but that doesn't mean the entire sector is egregious. I believe there is a place for businesses like these. They're making an offer for important things, while possibly not quite absolute necessities definitely very useful "luxuries", to a group of people that would otherwise not be able to have them. No one else is willing to touch the prospective borrower in this situation because they are massively high risk. If you're in that position, you have to accept that people are going to want to be compensated for their exposure. If the only way to get a couch was to buy it over again each year for four years, would you do it? Remember, it's your only reasonable option to actually get a couch that you don't pull directly out of the landfill. Some people may go without a couch and be fine, but I don't think it's unreasonable to RTO a couch or a bed if it's your only option to get a decent furnishing.
    - knowaveragejoe 12y ago
      > it's your only reasonable option to actually get a couch that you don't pull directly out of the landfill. Except that isn't even remotely true.
      - cookiecaper 12y ago
        I think it can be remotely true. You could say they could go to a garage sale, and they may find something acceptable at a reasonable price, but what if they don't have a vehicle large enough to transport it or people to help load and unload it? Most RTO places offer delivery, and most garage sales don't. It's more or less the same case with Craigslist; while your chances of finding someone willing to make delivery may increase, you only have a crappy photo taken with a potato to try to decide if you want it or not. Compare to buying a couch like a normal person at a normal furniture retailer. If you have the income to sustain the payments and know that you'll be paying more in the long run, it's a tradeoff some people are willing to make. Most of the time, you can pay off rentals early. The same kind of shenanigans go on with any financial instrument when one is considered "high risk". Credit cards charge ~30% APR until you have a well-established credit history. Car loans cost 15-20%. In any of these cases, you're a fool if you let the full term run out at those rates. You could say that someone doesn't need a car to get by, but it sure helps a lot, and so does a decent bed if someone is trying to get a good night's rest and be functional for work the next day. RTO does serve a legitimate purpose. It's just expensive, but sometimes that tradeoff can be reasonable.
  - ufmace 12y ago
    I may often not be super-sympathetic to the disadvantaged, but I can definitely see the iPad. To them, it's a hassle-free internet device that isn't likely to stop working or get infected with malware or have some other issue that they don't understand and can't fix. Want them to learn new skills and look for a better job? Much better to do both over the internet, where you don't have to drive around in a possibly broken-down car and burn expensive gas to look for a new job or go to school. Then again, it could also just be a way to spend more time and money on video games and movies...
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - cheald 12y ago
      I think that we can safely classify "internet access" as a necessity in first-world nations, regardless of income. But I'll happily say that iPads are a luxury when $30 Android phones exist. I have 3x Kyocera Hydras that I got on sale for $9 apiece, and they get the very same internet that a $650 iPad does.
      - monksy 12y ago
        Just found a Moto Droid X on the used market and flashed to page plus: ~$35 before shipping.
  - nkozyra 12y ago
    "No options" for people who wish to purchase these things less than "in full." Like I said, it might be an absolutely terrible idea, but this business presenting the opportunity in this fashion actually reduces the overall risk for this demographic.
- s1300045 12y ago
  I actually sympathize with their business model. In the end, a business is to make money. They are charging people with ridiculous prices because the risk of them failing to pay is ridiculous certain. It really goes to show the culture of poverty, and how hard it is to break from it. These people simply do not have the means or even the faintest idea to better their situation. It is very, very sad. They have no chance of breaking away from this vicious cycle. It is a major societal problem. This business model is exploitative and downright evil. But they are not the problem. They are merely the symptoms. Getting rid of those rent-to-own shops won't fix the broken system.
  - lost_name 12y ago
    It seems people disagree with your statements but you make a really good point. > They are charging people with ridiculous prices because the risk of them failing to pay is ridiculous certain. > This business model is exploitative and downright evil. But they are not the problem. Indeed, the problem is that these business are kept open by people who do not budget properly. Closing these businesses doesn't mean these people will have more money to spend on things that matter. We can say they aren't helping, but we can't say the consumers would better allocate their money.
- rdmcfee 12y ago
  I think this is a complex issue. I suspect that like with cars, many of these folks would have the option to buy a used item which is equally as functional for something like 20% of the price of a new item. Again, like cars, household items depreciate extremely rapidly. There's clearly some blame to go around. Better public education on financial decision making would help. The companies providing this type of financing could alter their business model or screening processes. Also, it seems that many lower income individuals strive to own new items because it portrays financial success even if it results in the opposite.
- nsxwolf 12y ago
  There are cheaper couches.
67726e 12y ago
I honestly wonder if people just refuse to accept their lot in life (and try to improve it) or if they're just bad with money. I'm moving and just sold a TV on Craigslist (relatively new, 50" Samsung) and I kid you not, someone sent me an email asking if I'd take some oddly specific amount for it (something like $112) because it was all the money they had and really needed a TV. My first thought wasn't pity, it was how foolish they must be.
- mikeash 12y ago
  My experience is that they're just bad with money. They only look at the monthly cost. There's no consideration given to the lifetime cost. Sometimes it's an inability to make the calculation, sometimes it just never occurs to them, and sometimes it's deliberate avoidance. Further, when examining the monthly cost, it's often done with an eye towards the most optimistic scenario. "I make X in a good month, I spend Y if I eat mostly ramen, therefore I can afford to pay X - Y per month on my new toy." There's often no consideration of normal fluctuations, let alone emergency expenses. The above probably comes across as blaming the poor, but I really think a lot of it comes down to education and culture. People just aren't taught what these deals really cost, or how to budget, or how to spend less than you earn. And then it's hard to have crap furniture and a junky car when your neighbor, who you know makes no more money than you do, has a nice new couch and a sporty car. I've seen this in action. I've lived it a little, but fortunately not much. I'm trying real hard not to be disparaging even though I may not have completely succeeded.
  - sosborn 12y ago
    I know a guy who is smart, well educated and gainfully employed, yet he cannot do financial math for his life. I used to try to educate him about these things but after a while I gave up. He was either unable or unwilling to learn those lessons.
    - dengnan 12y ago
      > educated and gainfully employed Well. In this case, he may just don't want to care too much about financial math because he does not have any financial issue pressing him to consider that part. Paul Erdős might not care about his own financial status as well, but that does not mean he will pay all he has to buy an iPad.
Igglyboo 12y ago
temporarily embarrassed millionaires
- monksy 12y ago
  I hate that idea. I really freaking do. People that are making $40k a year that buy a new Audi or Mercedes on their "future earnings".
zorpner 12y ago
Being impoverished doesn't just mean that you spend more time (and money) to get the same things[1] -- it means that the amount of effort you spend worrying about things that the non-impoverished take for granted reduces your ability to make good decisions overall[2]. People who haven't read e.g. Adam Smith on linen shirts like to take the image of a poor person with a wedding ring or a television and hold it up as an example of excess, but when you see widespread behavior that appears irrational, the right response is not to criticize it on those grounds, but to try to understand why it's happening. It's always happening for a reason. 1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053_pf.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05... 2: http://thepsychreport.com/research-application/featured-research/the-cognitive-burden-of-poverty/ http://thepsychreport.com/research-application/featured-rese...
- monksy 12y ago
  I'm suggesting that if you're finanically constrained, you have less options in what you can purchase. If you can't afford a diamond ring, get a fake one, get a used one. If that's out of your budget: Don't get one.
uptown 12y ago
"However, the sensible side is frustrated that these people aren't doing basic math." I did basic math on my cell phone plan this morning, and realized I can get a better deal by buying the device outright, and just getting a BYOD plan - so that's what I'm planning to do. Yet the VAST majority of Americans are doing the subsidized phone thing.
- malyk 12y ago
  the vast majority of americans dont have $650+ to blow on a single purchase but do have $x per month. It's sad that we've created a paycheck to paycheck culture, but thats what we have.
  - tbrownaw 12y ago
    It looked like my Nexus 5 was one of the nicer phones available when I got it, and it was around $350 or so. Is the extra $300 the Apple tax, or did I just get a better deal (or comparatively worse phone) than I thought?
    - Kluny 12y ago
      The Nexus 5 was an exceptionally good deal, put on the market by google at a good price to make sure that stock Android was in widespread use, since they need to test it. There are other reasons too. These days even cheaper option are available that are almost as good (Moto E, I think), because the competition demanded it. And yeah, it's a way better bet than an iPad in every sense except maybe screen size.
  - monksy 12y ago
    Buy it used.
- monksy 12y ago
  Whats your carrier? These are the MVNOs: Sprint: Go with Ting, Freedom pop, virgin mobile ATT: Cricket (all thought they're pretty bad) TMobile: TMobile Prepaid multi carrier: Walmart StraightTalk, TracFone Verizon: PagePlus
plorg 12y ago
Isn't there an ethical question, then, with preying on such people? If, as a business owner, you know that all (or many) of your customers are overextending themselves and ruining their finances, is it ethical to continue preying on the insecurities and shortsightedness that drive such poor decisions?
- bmelton 12y ago
  There are non-predatory means for wanting to rent furniture. From my own experience, we were selling a house that we'd moved out of, and having a hard time finding a buyer. Realtor suggested 'staging' the home, filling it with furniture, as a full home looks more lived in, and gives buyers an easier time imagining their own furniture in place of yours. Went to rent-a-center, rented a living room and dining room set and a bed for the master, and the home sold rather quickly thereafter. Though I couldn't say whether or not the furniture had anything to do with it, the renting of furniture is, by no means, predatory on its face. That people are renting furniture to own is the problem. There are numerous other options, including Craigslist, buying used furniture, or even layaway are all superior to rental.
  - plorg 12y ago
    I don't disagree that one is better off buying used furniture (if and when it can be acquired in good condition) if new furniture is too expensive to buy. However, if you are a businessperson offering to rent furniture, and if you believe that there are non-predatory reasons to rent out such furniture, then shouldn't you be targeting such rental purposes? If renting to own is the problem, then perhaps you shouldn't offer rent-to-own. Or, if a credit check is enough to rule out customers who are unlikely to pay, perhaps there should be a credit check. I am sure, in your case, you would have been able to pass such a check. I simply do not believe that a renter can benefit from usurious rentals and be absolved of moral burden because the renter 'should have known better'.
    - bmelton 12y ago
      Except that rent-to-own is beneficial. Couches are fairly durable, but nowhere close to infinitely so. Eventually, a rental furniture place has to either sell or dispose of the couch and replace it, presumably after having extracted the maximum value that they can. There are also plenty of benefits for renting to own. I know a couple of startups on the east coast who rent furniture to own, specifically the lobby stuff (moreso than the actual office equipment) because 1) They were able to negotiate better than the listed prices and 2) it's potentially cheaper than hiring an account and/or figuring out the excise and use taxes on the assets. Just because there are predatory use cases doesn't make the practice predatory ut totum. Also, nobody's compelling people to buy furniture they can't afford.
sumedh 12y ago
I saw an SNL skit long time back whose basic premise was "Dont buy stuff you cannot afford" http://vimeo.com/50044167 http://vimeo.com/50044167 Maybe they should see that video.
thomaspaine 12y ago
>neither Wal-Mart nor Jack’s nor the nursing home cafeteria have shown interest in an applicant with psoriasis and a ninth-grade education. People who only have ninth-grade educations aren't the greatest at basic math or delayed gratification.
dengnan 12y ago
It's even not only about their math skill, it's also about self control. They just need to wait for a while and put small amount of money into an account each week. They could get a TV/couch/iPad within <72 weeks. Considering their financial status, why they want to buy those things right NOW?
dghughes 12y ago
You don't have to be poor I'm sure there are many uneducated people who have degrees, common sense can't be bought. Just look at that Nitwit Long Island Medium she's preying on vulnerable and gullible people and I doubt she does it free of charge!
jobu 12y ago
Agreed. There are some really sad stories of people getting screwed by payday lenders to get their car fixed so they can get to work, but this is not one of those stories. These people were being stupid and getting a new couch when they couldn't afford it. They could've gotten several decent looking couches for $300 or less on Craigslist: http://huntsville.craigslist.org/search/fuo?query=couch+cullman http://huntsville.craigslist.org/search/fuo?query=couch+cull... If that seems callous, then it's because I've been poor and had to make those choices. Always pay cash, unless it's something that can help you make money (car to get to work, training, college education).
- jpindar 12y ago
  They could also have gotten a couch (or futon) from Wal-Mart for $200 or less. http://www.walmart.com/cp/4038?povid=cat1070145-env172199-moduleA080112-lLinkGNAV_Home_Furniture_LivingRoom http://www.walmart.com/cp/4038?povid=cat1070145-env172199-mo...

by monksy 12y ago

nkozyra 12y ago

> Part of me is disgusted that this business is allowed to operate in this manner. I understand this sentiment, but it's risk mitigation. As the article points out, there are no options for these people outside of this. It's serving a market and it's doing so in a way that reduces the risk - in some ways for both parties. Is it a smart move on the part of customers? I think it's hard to argue that it is, but I don't know that it's necessarily the fault of these businesses. If anything, it's a better move than going to an Amscot or getting a subprime credit card, because you're not wrecked financially nor is your credit ruined necessarily.

bluedino 12y ago
>> As the article points out, there are no options for these people outside of this. Going without a 60" TV or iPad isn't an option?
- plorg 12y ago
  The TV, no, but it is entirely possible that the iPad is being used for internet access. At this point in time a person without internet access is at a serious disadvantage to the larger population.
  - S4M 12y ago
    How about buying second hand computers or laptops?
    - JetSpiegel 12y ago
      The amount of computers just thrown away should be enough.
  - tgb 12y ago
    It would take about 11 weeks of payments to save up for the ipad to get one from eBay instead ($230 on ebay for 2nd gen 32gb model, 19 dollars a month for 72 weeks from buddy's). I wouldn't want to do without the internet for that long, but if they cancelled their internet for a month (which they wouldn't need without the ipad in this hypothetical) they'd be able to buy in maybe 2 months. Is two months of having to use the internet from the library really worth spending $1000 on when you can't even afford a $230 ipad? Sorry, but there are other options.
  - notahacker 12y ago
    What proportion of Buddy's customers need home internet access via a second hand iPad2 immediately (ultimate cost $1400) as opposed to internet access via second-hand Android tablet (cost <$100) after waiting a month? I'd be surprised if it was double digits.
- arenaninja 12y ago
  I'm with you on TV, not so much on the iPad (or other device that lets you access the internet). I don't own either, but I do own a desktop. Homework with an e-mail component is increasingly onerous, my niece gets it all the time, but she has no internet access at home (in Los Angeles), save for her phone. At best anecdotal evidence, but it does make me empathize with people who suddenly find themselves in need of an expensive piece of electronic equipment to be able to function in modern society. You might (rightly) point out that there are alternatives for the iPad, but how many people are really aware of them? A lot of people don't even call a tablet 'tablet', they call it an 'iPad'
- cookiecaper 12y ago
  Those aren't the only things that people rent to own. Most people rent basic household furnishings like couches, mattresses, and tables. Aaron's et al will offer other things to try to upsell you, like iPads, but that doesn't mean the entire sector is egregious. I believe there is a place for businesses like these. They're making an offer for important things, while possibly not quite absolute necessities definitely very useful "luxuries", to a group of people that would otherwise not be able to have them. No one else is willing to touch the prospective borrower in this situation because they are massively high risk. If you're in that position, you have to accept that people are going to want to be compensated for their exposure. If the only way to get a couch was to buy it over again each year for four years, would you do it? Remember, it's your only reasonable option to actually get a couch that you don't pull directly out of the landfill. Some people may go without a couch and be fine, but I don't think it's unreasonable to RTO a couch or a bed if it's your only option to get a decent furnishing.
  - knowaveragejoe 12y ago
    > it's your only reasonable option to actually get a couch that you don't pull directly out of the landfill. Except that isn't even remotely true.
    - cookiecaper 12y ago
      I think it can be remotely true. You could say they could go to a garage sale, and they may find something acceptable at a reasonable price, but what if they don't have a vehicle large enough to transport it or people to help load and unload it? Most RTO places offer delivery, and most garage sales don't. It's more or less the same case with Craigslist; while your chances of finding someone willing to make delivery may increase, you only have a crappy photo taken with a potato to try to decide if you want it or not. Compare to buying a couch like a normal person at a normal furniture retailer. If you have the income to sustain the payments and know that you'll be paying more in the long run, it's a tradeoff some people are willing to make. Most of the time, you can pay off rentals early. The same kind of shenanigans go on with any financial instrument when one is considered "high risk". Credit cards charge ~30% APR until you have a well-established credit history. Car loans cost 15-20%. In any of these cases, you're a fool if you let the full term run out at those rates. You could say that someone doesn't need a car to get by, but it sure helps a lot, and so does a decent bed if someone is trying to get a good night's rest and be functional for work the next day. RTO does serve a legitimate purpose. It's just expensive, but sometimes that tradeoff can be reasonable.
- ufmace 12y ago
  I may often not be super-sympathetic to the disadvantaged, but I can definitely see the iPad. To them, it's a hassle-free internet device that isn't likely to stop working or get infected with malware or have some other issue that they don't understand and can't fix. Want them to learn new skills and look for a better job? Much better to do both over the internet, where you don't have to drive around in a possibly broken-down car and burn expensive gas to look for a new job or go to school. Then again, it could also just be a way to spend more time and money on video games and movies...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - cheald 12y ago
    I think that we can safely classify "internet access" as a necessity in first-world nations, regardless of income. But I'll happily say that iPads are a luxury when $30 Android phones exist. I have 3x Kyocera Hydras that I got on sale for $9 apiece, and they get the very same internet that a $650 iPad does.
    - monksy 12y ago
      Just found a Moto Droid X on the used market and flashed to page plus: ~$35 before shipping.
- nkozyra 12y ago
  "No options" for people who wish to purchase these things less than "in full." Like I said, it might be an absolutely terrible idea, but this business presenting the opportunity in this fashion actually reduces the overall risk for this demographic.
s1300045 12y ago
I actually sympathize with their business model. In the end, a business is to make money. They are charging people with ridiculous prices because the risk of them failing to pay is ridiculous certain. It really goes to show the culture of poverty, and how hard it is to break from it. These people simply do not have the means or even the faintest idea to better their situation. It is very, very sad. They have no chance of breaking away from this vicious cycle. It is a major societal problem. This business model is exploitative and downright evil. But they are not the problem. They are merely the symptoms. Getting rid of those rent-to-own shops won't fix the broken system.
- lost_name 12y ago
  It seems people disagree with your statements but you make a really good point. > They are charging people with ridiculous prices because the risk of them failing to pay is ridiculous certain. > This business model is exploitative and downright evil. But they are not the problem. Indeed, the problem is that these business are kept open by people who do not budget properly. Closing these businesses doesn't mean these people will have more money to spend on things that matter. We can say they aren't helping, but we can't say the consumers would better allocate their money.
rdmcfee 12y ago
I think this is a complex issue. I suspect that like with cars, many of these folks would have the option to buy a used item which is equally as functional for something like 20% of the price of a new item. Again, like cars, household items depreciate extremely rapidly. There's clearly some blame to go around. Better public education on financial decision making would help. The companies providing this type of financing could alter their business model or screening processes. Also, it seems that many lower income individuals strive to own new items because it portrays financial success even if it results in the opposite.
nsxwolf 12y ago
There are cheaper couches.

67726e 12y ago

I honestly wonder if people just refuse to accept their lot in life (and try to improve it) or if they're just bad with money. I'm moving and just sold a TV on Craigslist (relatively new, 50" Samsung) and I kid you not, someone sent me an email asking if I'd take some oddly specific amount for it (something like $112) because it was all the money they had and really needed a TV. My first thought wasn't pity, it was how foolish they must be.

mikeash 12y ago
My experience is that they're just bad with money. They only look at the monthly cost. There's no consideration given to the lifetime cost. Sometimes it's an inability to make the calculation, sometimes it just never occurs to them, and sometimes it's deliberate avoidance. Further, when examining the monthly cost, it's often done with an eye towards the most optimistic scenario. "I make X in a good month, I spend Y if I eat mostly ramen, therefore I can afford to pay X - Y per month on my new toy." There's often no consideration of normal fluctuations, let alone emergency expenses. The above probably comes across as blaming the poor, but I really think a lot of it comes down to education and culture. People just aren't taught what these deals really cost, or how to budget, or how to spend less than you earn. And then it's hard to have crap furniture and a junky car when your neighbor, who you know makes no more money than you do, has a nice new couch and a sporty car. I've seen this in action. I've lived it a little, but fortunately not much. I'm trying real hard not to be disparaging even though I may not have completely succeeded.
- sosborn 12y ago
  I know a guy who is smart, well educated and gainfully employed, yet he cannot do financial math for his life. I used to try to educate him about these things but after a while I gave up. He was either unable or unwilling to learn those lessons.
  - dengnan 12y ago
    > educated and gainfully employed Well. In this case, he may just don't want to care too much about financial math because he does not have any financial issue pressing him to consider that part. Paul Erdős might not care about his own financial status as well, but that does not mean he will pay all he has to buy an iPad.

Igglyboo 12y ago

temporarily embarrassed millionaires

monksy 12y ago
I hate that idea. I really freaking do. People that are making $40k a year that buy a new Audi or Mercedes on their "future earnings".

zorpner 12y ago

Being impoverished doesn't just mean that you spend more time (and money) to get the same things[1] -- it means that the amount of effort you spend worrying about things that the non-impoverished take for granted reduces your ability to make good decisions overall[2]. People who haven't read e.g. Adam Smith on linen shirts like to take the image of a poor person with a wedding ring or a television and hold it up as an example of excess, but when you see widespread behavior that appears irrational, the right response is not to criticize it on those grounds, but to try to understand why it's happening. It's always happening for a reason. 1: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053_pf.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05... 2: http://thepsychreport.com/research-application/featured-research/the-cognitive-burden-of-poverty/ http://thepsychreport.com/research-application/featured-rese...

monksy 12y ago
I'm suggesting that if you're finanically constrained, you have less options in what you can purchase. If you can't afford a diamond ring, get a fake one, get a used one. If that's out of your budget: Don't get one.

uptown 12y ago

"However, the sensible side is frustrated that these people aren't doing basic math." I did basic math on my cell phone plan this morning, and realized I can get a better deal by buying the device outright, and just getting a BYOD plan - so that's what I'm planning to do. Yet the VAST majority of Americans are doing the subsidized phone thing.

malyk 12y ago
the vast majority of americans dont have $650+ to blow on a single purchase but do have $x per month. It's sad that we've created a paycheck to paycheck culture, but thats what we have.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  It looked like my Nexus 5 was one of the nicer phones available when I got it, and it was around $350 or so. Is the extra $300 the Apple tax, or did I just get a better deal (or comparatively worse phone) than I thought?
  - Kluny 12y ago
    The Nexus 5 was an exceptionally good deal, put on the market by google at a good price to make sure that stock Android was in widespread use, since they need to test it. There are other reasons too. These days even cheaper option are available that are almost as good (Moto E, I think), because the competition demanded it. And yeah, it's a way better bet than an iPad in every sense except maybe screen size.
- monksy 12y ago
  Buy it used.
monksy 12y ago
Whats your carrier? These are the MVNOs: Sprint: Go with Ting, Freedom pop, virgin mobile ATT: Cricket (all thought they're pretty bad) TMobile: TMobile Prepaid multi carrier: Walmart StraightTalk, TracFone Verizon: PagePlus

plorg 12y ago

Isn't there an ethical question, then, with preying on such people? If, as a business owner, you know that all (or many) of your customers are overextending themselves and ruining their finances, is it ethical to continue preying on the insecurities and shortsightedness that drive such poor decisions?

bmelton 12y ago
There are non-predatory means for wanting to rent furniture. From my own experience, we were selling a house that we'd moved out of, and having a hard time finding a buyer. Realtor suggested 'staging' the home, filling it with furniture, as a full home looks more lived in, and gives buyers an easier time imagining their own furniture in place of yours. Went to rent-a-center, rented a living room and dining room set and a bed for the master, and the home sold rather quickly thereafter. Though I couldn't say whether or not the furniture had anything to do with it, the renting of furniture is, by no means, predatory on its face. That people are renting furniture to own is the problem. There are numerous other options, including Craigslist, buying used furniture, or even layaway are all superior to rental.
- plorg 12y ago
  I don't disagree that one is better off buying used furniture (if and when it can be acquired in good condition) if new furniture is too expensive to buy. However, if you are a businessperson offering to rent furniture, and if you believe that there are non-predatory reasons to rent out such furniture, then shouldn't you be targeting such rental purposes? If renting to own is the problem, then perhaps you shouldn't offer rent-to-own. Or, if a credit check is enough to rule out customers who are unlikely to pay, perhaps there should be a credit check. I am sure, in your case, you would have been able to pass such a check. I simply do not believe that a renter can benefit from usurious rentals and be absolved of moral burden because the renter 'should have known better'.
  - bmelton 12y ago
    Except that rent-to-own is beneficial. Couches are fairly durable, but nowhere close to infinitely so. Eventually, a rental furniture place has to either sell or dispose of the couch and replace it, presumably after having extracted the maximum value that they can. There are also plenty of benefits for renting to own. I know a couple of startups on the east coast who rent furniture to own, specifically the lobby stuff (moreso than the actual office equipment) because 1) They were able to negotiate better than the listed prices and 2) it's potentially cheaper than hiring an account and/or figuring out the excise and use taxes on the assets. Just because there are predatory use cases doesn't make the practice predatory ut totum. Also, nobody's compelling people to buy furniture they can't afford.

sumedh 12y ago

I saw an SNL skit long time back whose basic premise was "Dont buy stuff you cannot afford" http://vimeo.com/50044167 http://vimeo.com/50044167 Maybe they should see that video.

thomaspaine 12y ago

>neither Wal-Mart nor Jack’s nor the nursing home cafeteria have shown interest in an applicant with psoriasis and a ninth-grade education. People who only have ninth-grade educations aren't the greatest at basic math or delayed gratification.

dengnan 12y ago

It's even not only about their math skill, it's also about self control. They just need to wait for a while and put small amount of money into an account each week. They could get a TV/couch/iPad within <72 weeks. Considering their financial status, why they want to buy those things right NOW?

dghughes 12y ago

You don't have to be poor I'm sure there are many uneducated people who have degrees, common sense can't be bought. Just look at that Nitwit Long Island Medium she's preying on vulnerable and gullible people and I doubt she does it free of charge!

jobu 12y ago

Agreed. There are some really sad stories of people getting screwed by payday lenders to get their car fixed so they can get to work, but this is not one of those stories. These people were being stupid and getting a new couch when they couldn't afford it. They could've gotten several decent looking couches for $300 or less on Craigslist: http://huntsville.craigslist.org/search/fuo?query=couch+cullman http://huntsville.craigslist.org/search/fuo?query=couch+cull... If that seems callous, then it's because I've been poor and had to make those choices. Always pay cash, unless it's something that can help you make money (car to get to work, training, college education).

jpindar 12y ago
They could also have gotten a couch (or futon) from Wal-Mart for $200 or less. http://www.walmart.com/cp/4038?povid=cat1070145-env172199-moduleA080112-lLinkGNAV_Home_Furniture_LivingRoom http://www.walmart.com/cp/4038?povid=cat1070145-env172199-mo...