World, Writing, Wealth discussion
Wealth & Economics
>
It's expensive to be poor
date
newest »
newest »
message 51:
by
Nik
(new)
Jun 22, 2017 10:50AM
Is poverty expensive, what do you think?
reply
|
flag
Being in poverty myself, I would say yes. Or more of, you're more aware of how expensive everything is. It's not worth the physical and mental damage it does to your body, but you can't afford to fix it. I feel like I get sicker way more than someone of my age otherwise would. My clothes all have holes in them; I can't get them fixed.
Elizabeth, hope your life turns to better soonest
People aspire for a status. Everybody wants to be rich because richness ensures a status in the society. The rich are aware of the fact and they always try to work and behave in the way that keeps them rich.The poor are also aware of the fact. But they are lost in quagmire of rules of civilized society. They also think they should be rich. But they desist from getting trained, working and behaving in the socially desired manner.
Avnish wrote: "The poor .......... desist from getting trained, working and behaving in the socially desired manner. ..."Really? I think that's a lot of erroneous generalizations about poor people. Sure, there are those, who don't do much, but many work pretty hard, yet unable to make the ends meet.
Just some quick data from the internet:
https://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/hi...
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-392...
Training, behaving are also good, but don't necessarily guarantee a bright future.
Not everyone who wants to become rich and is ready to invest an effort, becomes rich. Work doesn't make anyone rich, but a well-paid job may provide for a fair/good subsistence. Business is the path to riches, but becoming bankrupt is much more likely than becoming a billionaire, for example.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericwagn...
In the West the situ is relatively good/better than in most other parts of the World, but I'm not sure tendencies support rosy prognosis..
If we define poor as having insufficient for enough clothes and shelter to keep warm and dry, reasonable and nourishing food, medical help, and a little more for modest entertainment, then poverty is a blight on society. I get sick of these people who insist it is their fault. For some, yes it probably is, but for many, they get caught in a trap and they cannot get out. If you think poor health is due to fault, exactly how do you change your genetic makeup? Similarly, with starting a business. The links provided by Nik show the US is actually a good place to start; in NZ the failure rate is much higher in the first two years. It is not necessarily "fault", but rather inexperience, and, oddly enough, in my opinion at least, through taking advice. The problem is, someone might have succeeded by being very lucky and had followed an aggressive strategy, but that is also a high risk one. They made a lot of money and feel that is the way to go, but high risk means a few percent make it, and the rest don't.
There is another problem. With the best will in the word, some people simply do not have sufficient intelligence to make it in an increasingly technical world. It is not their fault they got a crap deal at birth.
This is irony. If we have pity on the poor, we are great. But if we find fault, we are ruthless.True, there are a lot of fancy stories on rags to riches and on billionaires to bankruptcy.
But if the poor get proper training and behave properly in their job, they will never be unemployed. While employed, one gets remunerated and can arrange food, health, education and all that. For example, a salesman should always be soft to customer; otherwise he / she will be out of job.
Businesses generally fail because of their start with lack of training and experience.
Billionaires generally become bankrupt because of speculative moves.
Now question is why general masses become part of speculations. This happened before the sub-prime crisis in US when banks were ready to lend to people with poor credit scores. And people accepted loans without having repayment capacities.
Avnish wrote: "This is irony. If we have pity on the poor, we are great. But if we find fault, we are ruthless...."I don't think anyone means to say all poor are cool and industrious, but certainly not that it's ever their fault. There are scumbags among poor and there are scumbags among billionaires, politicians and so on.. The problem with poor is real, the circumstances are different and shall be checked ad hoc, in a sense whom to maybe provide help and support. I just think relying on stereotypes and stigmas whether about poor or about uber rich distract from tackling the problems with both.
Avnish wrote: "if the poor get proper training and behave properly in their job, they will never be unemployed....."
There are reasons for Detroit disintegrating, losing a big chunk of population and going bankrupt. Being good or bad didn't help. If you are en excellent miner, for example, but the coal industry folds, not sure one can be blamed for being unable to swiftly re-qualify to become a high-tech engineer after you spend, say - 20 years under the surface..
Avnish wrote: "Now question is why general masses become part of speculations. This happened before the sub-prime crisis in US when banks were ready to lend to people with poor credit scores....."
A good question indeed. I heard people were able to take loans of 110% of the real estate's price, to be able to buy furniture as well. The assumption was that real estate would ever appreciate...
Here, banks usually won't provide a loan for more than 2/3 of the price and would usually verify that monthly mortgage repayment doesn't exceed 40-50% of family's income.
On the other hand, there is a lot of truth to the saying that when you owe under a million to a bank, it's your problem, but if you owe more than a million - it's bank's problem. A ridiculous haircut write off of big chucks of debts of uber rich experiencing problems, caused a serious outcry here and many banks backed off from doing it.
Government bailout or bank writing off part of the debt is probably something no poor chap is ever availed...
The coal miner analogy is interesting, and I'm not speaking specifically of coal miners in my post, but there was a time in this country when people could readily pack up and head across country looking for work when times were tough. Nowadays, it seems travel has gotten prohibited, and that's made worse by the number of possessions people have accumulated in our time, making a move that much harder. Then as Nik suggested, real estate tends to be a chain. The collapse in the housing market nearly a decade ago made it impossible for people to sell their homes and follow the jobs. Caught a few minutes of a program on Appalachia on PBS this morning, and probably the biggest reason these people don't leave the region and go somewhere where there's work is because they own their land and their homes. Fact is, if Appalachia is such a craphole with no jobs, then who wants to move there? Who's going to buy their property so they can move on? Worse, how much are they actually going to get for that land to put toward a move?Property, especially for the poor, becomes a major roadblock sometimes in bettering one's life. A lot of people with deep roots in this country value land that has been in their family. African Americans are very proud of what they own when their history has been one of oppression and they see land ownership as a major achievement. There was a program on PBS a few years ago looking at the state of New Orleans years after Hurricane Katrina. Black residents suffered more than anyone. A lot owned their homes, but couldn't afford insurance, so when they lost their home, they couldn't afford to rebuild. The city requires all homeowners to keep their yards trimmed and maintained or they seize the property. These African Americans couldn't afford to rebuild, but they were too proud of that land to give it up (even if they sold it and took the money), so they show up regularly to their vacant lots and mow the grass. It's the same thinking in coal mining country - people don't have much, but at least they have a patch of land to call their own.
J.J. wrote: "These African Americans couldn't afford to rebuild, but they were too proud of that land to give it up (even if they sold it and took the money), so they show up regularly to their vacant lots and mow the grass...."An interesting although a sad story!
Moving after the money/jobs is much easier for younger dudes without families. Some can't leave aging parents behind or simply take kids to another place for it'll require renting a better apartment, amenities and stuff and this becomes impractical when working low paid jobs. Many couples live separately for long periods, earning money elsewhere and wiring it home every month. The estimate is that about 1 million Ukrainians work at construction sites in Spain and Portugal. A lot of Thailand and Philippine dudes work abroad and many others.. And of course many immigrants came to the States with nothing on them and succeeded.
Not sure that in order to survive people need to be semi-heroes though.
I remember stories from the beginning of 90-ies when USSR disintegrated and salary arrears were many months long. People worked, but didn't get paid or were paid by the produce of their factories.. They couldn't leave either, because no country would issue a visa to a potential gastarbeiter. No wonder gangs ruled the streets for a few years..
Yes, if the economy collapses, or your part of it does, there is not much you can do about it. Russia would have been a particularly bad example because people would not have had saved money, as the state had been guaranteeing them employment. But unemployment still happens everywhere. Very few countries have less than 5% unemployed, and while some of those people will be lazy, a lot will also have been stricken with bad luck. The question is, how secure are you? How would you ride out a depression if one struck tomorrow?
Ian wrote: "Russia would have been a particularly bad example because people would not have had saved money, as the state had been guaranteeing them employment...."People had savings in State savings bank, but ruble plummeted and all of them turned into a joke worth a few cents. There were programs to compensate those losses, but they never reimbursed the real value to the people...
There are categories of people, which if god forbid lose their job (no matter whether for their fault or not), it becomes nearly impossible to find something else. For example 50+ years old - often good, qualified dudes, but most employers won't hire them..
So, would it be true that the richer you become, the cheaper you acquire and that it's kinda expensive to be poor? What do you think?
Nik wrote: "So, would it be true that the richer you become, the cheaper you acquire and that it's kinda expensive to be poor? What do you think?"At the risk of misquoting Einstein, "It's relativity, stupid!" Everything, for the poor, costs such a higher fraction of what they have. I once had a discussion with a man relating to a funding decision in which he was a silent partner, and warned him that project was as likely as not to go south and he would lose the best part of a million. He shrugged, and said it would not appear in the significant figures of his cash flow.
When my son's truck was hit by a semi truck that ran a red light, he had no health insurance. I found out quickly that doctor visits cost him much more than they did for those who were insured. So in his case, it was expensive to be poor. But he had me backing him up, and he got through it. He's doing fine now.So, if you're poor and have a support system, you'll be okay. But if you're poor and have no support system, you're probably screwed.
Wouldn't the truck company have to pay? Either way, shouldn't charges be the same, irrespective of who pays?
I rather intended to the following cases:For example, you have different type of credit cards: Gold, Platinum, Insignia and all the rest. Maybe it doesn't work the same everywhere, but the richer you are (the more funds you have in the bank) the more prestigious/exclusive credit card you can get and the lower will be the interest charged on your deferred payments.
The more you travel or purchase, the more points you accumulate and the more free flights you get.
Stuff like that.
And of course, if you can afford a tax lawyer, it's a kinda next level :)
Can you think of more examples?
Ian wrote: "Wouldn't the truck company have to pay? Either way, shouldn't charges be the same, irrespective of who pays?"Personal injury suits in accidents can take a while and medical entities won't wait for payment when it takes a year. As Scout stated, no insurance means that the medical entity isn't under any contract limiting what they can charge (which is why our bills state amount charged, amount allowed, and co-pay). Therefore, the uninsured are paying more because the provider's rate is not discounted under a contract.
The higher credit rating, which goes along with those platinum and high limit credit rating, also means a better interest rate on car loans, mortgages and personal loans. Often ancillary fees are waived, from bank charges to late fees. The poorer person who may have paid late on their car loan because of unexpected medical bills or car/home repairs started out with a higher interest rate and they are then charged higher late fees, all of which collect more interest at that higher loan rate.
Then, the car insurance company runs your credit rating too, and the higher credit rating provides for lower insurance rates.
The utility companies will waive security deposits for those who have more income and higher credit ratings.
I can attest to the fact that you can have a glowing credit score for years, but missing one payment can drop your score by almost 100 points. Then it's a long slog back up to where you were. It's ridiculous.
Of course it is harder to be poor and it is much more expensive. There is plenty of literature out there showing how much harder it is when you are not well off.
