ShivaX
4159
Like not losing your job because your car broke down and you couldn’t get to work.
You’re arguing against a generalization in a fantasy fiction novel. It’s easy to be right. But it’s still a thing that applies often, including footwear (maybe less so in these days of cheaply made sneakers at all price levels).
It’s somewhat lucky. I wouldn’t say it’s perfectly mapped into the cost, but it’s that cheap because a big part of the risk is real - you have no idea what the previous owner did with the car, and bad maintenance alone can be disastrous to the most expensive parts.
Although, yes, brands and models affect the reliability a lot as well, and people should buy less prestigious but more reliable/cheaper to maintain cars more often.
DoubleG
4161
You’re arguing that people should be allowed to make their own decisions, but you’re ignoring people’s economic conditions, which often force them to make a choice that they wouldn’t otherwise. Dollar General has created a monopoly on the stores that I can walk to, so I need to pay more for goods. The banks have banned me for not paying an overdraft fee, so I need to go to a check casher. My landlord won’t fix my heater, so I need to get an electric one. These aren’t just “being poor sucks” stories, they’re all parts of the machinery that’s driving inequality.
CraigM
4162
Are there goods where an increase in price does not pair with an increase in quality/ longevity of equal or greater magnitude? Sure.
Are there goods where an increase in price produces an increase in longevity of equal or greater magnitude? Absolutely.
I mean… there is all sorts of confounding factors.
If the $2000 car needs a new engine or transmission that’s a big chunk right there!
Maybe the old car burns oil or runs rich and the fuel economy is worse.
Maybe the $20k car will last that person 15 years with minimal maintenance, while the $2k car gets replaced 4 times in that span with another $2k car.
Unless you are doing the maintenance and repair work yourself (which if you are renting more often than not you can not do as it is not allowed per your lease terms) older cars tend to cost more to maintain, like to like. Take two identical vehicles, one with 10k miles one with 100k miles, and 98% of the time the car with 100k miles will incur greater annual maintenance costs. Just straight up, this is an unavoidable fact. The difference. is such that usually, but not 100% of the time, the annual cost of ownership (price of the car amortized over your ownership time span + maintenance and consumables cost) of an old car (defining here as 100k+ miles) will exceed that of a newer car.
And before someone comes back with the retort ‘but what if you buy a car for 60% of sticker with only 10k miles’, understand the used car market has shifted and deals like that are scare today, and that’s intentionally ignoring the what should be obvious from the first post difference between owning a nice new car versus a beat to hell and back POS used car, which is what many/ most people in poverty have if they even have a car.
A payday lender is a loan shark. Just a legal one.
This seems like a perverse rationalization. Poor people have room to store 3 9-ounce cans of peas, but not 3 12-ounce cans of peas. Is that a serious argument?
Sharpe
4165
Once again, a lot of discussion here that is talking past one another.
There are actually two separate but related issues in this current discussion:
1)The broad issue of income and the reality that being poor sucks due to unequal bargaining power
and
2)The narrower issue of predatory practices.
These issues are related in that unequal bargaining power often renders people vulnerable to the predatory practices but they are also separate issues.
It’s fairly clear that the best overall anti-poverty programs are programs that increase incomes in one way or another, either with higher wages, better benefits, better bargaining positions, direct payments, subsidies etc. This both directly improves the standards of living of the poor and also gives the poor greater bargaining power to deal with the suckiness of negotiating from a poor posture.
In addition to that, when there is good reason to believe there are actual predatory practices, then those should be looked at and reduced/prevented as a part of a reasonable regulatory scheme. As an example, a properly balanced zoning plan would look at things like the presence of big box stores, small businesses and discount retailers like Dollar Stores and would try to account for a balanced approach. Too many Dollar Stores can have negative impacts as discussed but that doesn’t mean they should be totally banned outright.
One of the keys to the kind of healthy market economy I envision is reasonable regulation, which means balanced regulation. That can help with the consumer predation side of things in a big way.
In addition to that, there is the issue of trying to improve income opportunities (in a variety of ways) for the bulk of the population.
TLDR version: why not both.gif.
I don’t think anyone is saying we must concentrate on the predators but ignore the actual wage problem, but I do think some people are saying we must concentrate on the wage problem and ignore the predators.
Sharpe
4167
I believe that the wage problem should be the higher priority without wanting to ignore or disregard the predator problem. I don’t think the weighting should be equal, but that doesn’t mean I consider the predation issue completely unimportant. But I do believe the primary focus should be on wages and opportunities, and in some situations on subsidies and grants (for example in health care and education). In addition to that, we should also look at predatory practices, as a supporting tool to the main drive of improving opportunities.
That’s my view.
It depends on the state. Most states allow payday loans at a 15% fee for a 2 week period, which works out to be over 400% interest per year, very much in line with loan shark at 3-10% vig per WEEK
Some states cap payday loan interest rates at 36%
Sharpe, as he often does, has nicely clarified the problem. I agree with why not both.
I think that’s still crazy and usurious, personally.
Me too, of course.
CraigM
4170
Keep in mind the inciting comment for the whole discussion was someone in the UK government proposing amending the way inflation is calculated to better understand the way that poor people are impacted by economic changes, as the economic realities of being poor can materially change the way they experience poverty.
A completely sensible position. It is certainly important to understand an issue too address it. The pithy name for it, the Vimes Boot Index, was just a cheeky reference. A cheeky reference that hits at a larger truth, but one people felt compelled to ‘well actually’ about.
Literally no one defending the sentiment thinks that addressing income isn’t an important, critical, aspect of fixing the problem. What is mind bending is the degree to which people wish to ignore the myriad ways that being poor makes things more expensive.
DoubleG
4171
It’s exactly this. You can’t build solutions for addressing income without understanding the economic realities of the people you’re trying to help – otherwise, you might propose solutions that won’t work.
wavey
4173
Well, quite. I do think that having a way to measure one particular aspect of poverty could be useful, in terms of quantifying (and publicising) the impact of various policies and situations on the poorest members of society - I was surprised there was any controversy tbh. It’s not exactly going to solve poverty by itself overnight, but it could well be an insightful tool, and I’d be interested in seeing the data.
Btw, Jack Monroe, who proposed the Boot Index, knows whereof they speak; having lived through poverty, and becoming known whilst blogging about how to feed a family on £10/week. I have one of their cook books, which is based on recipes that can be made from canned goods.
CraigM
4174
Me too! Is there a meaningful difference in inflation between different economic strata? Could be! I don’t actually know. It certainly is plausible. I would like too have concrete numbers for that though :)
This is kind of amazing, and a good time to reflect on the fact that federal age discrimination laws apparently don’t apply to people under 40?
Is it amazing? Maybe I’m missing an angle but employing minors who have legal restrictions on how much or how often they can work isn’t a requirement is it? It certainly seems reasonable to offer them lower pay because of those restrictions.
I think you’ll probably find that they’re treating all non-management staff as part-time employees, and all those employees are doing the same kind of work on the same kinds of shift rotations for about the same number of hours per week.
I don’t know where that is, but it’s a state where you can apparently employ 14-yr-olds, so I’m skeptical there are very many real restrictions on what those kids can be scheduled to do.
It’s Minnesota, based on the link. California allows 14 year-olds to be employed, though with restrictions on total hours and time of day.
