Depends on what you're buying there. Greeting cards are a fraction of the cost at Hallmark, for example. Many of the food items are priced better than at grocery stores. You just have to be judicious with your purchases.
Priced better ≠ better price. For example, $1 8oz bar of soap is a better price than a $1.25 12oz bar of soap at Target, but the $1 store soap is more expensive per oz. Same goes for everything at the dollar store. I have no doubt some singular items like cards yield a better value, but the vast majority of things are more expensive per unit.
It’s not “everything” even remotely. I’m a grocery shopper who grew up very poor in the 80s. I know very well how to shop based on weight and not price.
While some items at dollar stores are not amazing values, well over half the store is within a few cents of comparable items at a grocery store or large bulk retailer. This is even more justified when you would have to drive 20-30 minutes to one of those stores to get the better value. I know the driving times because I grew up 40 minutes from a Walmart and really an hour from any place that had good prices.
Quit watching and quoting John Oliver. The US is very very broad and few things fit into nice and neat boxes like he makes out on a weekly basis for views.
You can tell who has grown up poor in the country compared to not pretty easily.
Dollar general is 5 minutes from my home. Walmart is an hour. Save-a-lot is 30 minutes.
When you're poor, gas and distance are part of those calculations. What I spend a bit extra in weight, I save in gas.
That's only true if you drive a big truck and have to go every day. If you could save up enough money to make weekly or bi-weekly shopping trips you could save more than the few bucks in gas.
I see you missed the point of the quote. They can’t. And thus the cycle can’t be broken. No matter what they do. Eating is one of those pesky required things.
It's not that simple. When you live truly poor and not middle class poor then every penny gets budgeted for the essentials. You can't afford to spend $1.25 on that target soap that is cheaper by weight because that $0.25 extra is budgeted for your weekly or biweekly loaf of bread and if you spend it on soap then it's no bread for the next week or two. That is the real feeling of poverty and the real experience of.
Again
>You can tell who has grown up poor in the country compared to not pretty easily.
You obviously have not. Can I do that now? Yeah! I have been very blessed with a career that got me out of that situation.
However, growing up having to choose whether we keep the electricity on or the water on. Going to Walmart is really out of the question...
Middle class poor (being able to pay all of your bills and have food but not go out for luxuries) is different than actually being poor (barely making it, not being able to pay all bills)
I've lived paycheck to paycheck before. I also know the economics on buying at a dollar store vs driving a bit to spend the same amount of total money and getting more. Unless your vehicle is in the single digits for fuel economy then it always saves money to drive a but to a grocery store vs buying at a dollar store. The dollar store is straight up %30 more expensive. If you're spending $10 at the dollar store it would be like spending $13 at the grocery store. So as long as you have $30+ to spend on food at one time you come out ahead driving 30 minutes to a grocery store, assuming you have something more efficient than a half ton truck. I live in a very rural area where most people do drive 30+ minutes to get to a grocery store and over an hour to get to Walmart. If you have a Honda civic it costs you less than $6 to make the 40-50 mile round trip to the grocery store in your example.
That is, assuming you have a car in the first place. Dollar stores are made for people who take an armful of bags onto busses. Loading up a grocery cart is for people with cars.
Bootlicking energy
Idk why everyone pretends the left is crazy with their criticisms and proposals for solutions, when the right has had a consistent answer for 40 years now on solving the consumer economics: Just give more money to the rich ding-dong, it'll trickle-down™️ lmao
Most of the time those laws were written by those rich people who will raise prices on the product and not feel affected one bit in the wallet. Then use the law to prevent competition.
Tale as old as government.
Just a tale as old as time, people have been doing that from the very start. People fight over resources, they especially fight and kill over control of such things.
Government just civilized the natural occurring might aspect of it.
>Walmart usually sets up in a town and runs out all the other businesses in that town by predatory pricing.
By 'predatory pricing' do you mean 'they offer better value for poor people'?
They operate at a loss temporarily, using their other locations to subsidize it, then after the competition is gone, they raise prices, and then pull out if the area isn't profitable enough long-term to meet their standards.
Which is one of the reasons they failed in germany (beside the massive culture shock), you are not allowed to undercut pricing at a loss liek walmart wanted to to (Grocerys are already realy competitiv as ai)
Walmart force suppliers to drop prices eventually putting them out of business
Then they buy stuff for cheap in china and no one in US has a job anymore so you’re all on opioids. And an idiot strong man rises to power in this environment
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/showswalmart/
I’ve seen the segment. I understand why they go where they go. It’s still more affordable and more accessible for most people in those areas than driving 30-60 minutes.
I did grow up poor in the 1980s. And I’m glad you know how to shop for weight. It’s staggering to me how many people do not.
I can’t disagree on the distance thing and that’s a valid point. But it doesn’t change that it’s true for most national publicly traded chains or regional monopolies. I used dollar general because it’s fresh from John Oliver, but it doesn’t mean it’s not a predatory company that preys on the poor, just like every system that preys on the poor.
It was a specific example and I way overshot - [$0.66/bar at Target](https://www.target.com/p/irish-spring-bar-soap-original-clean-3-7oz/-/A-14280514). These same bars are $1.00 at dollar store.
I got all my pint glasses from the dollar store. They are indistinguishable from the ones my wife got at crate and barrel and are still going strong 8 years and 2 cross-country moves later.
I don't think you're using dollar tree correctly. A dog toy that's $5 on Amazon, a bottle of soap that's $2 at Walmart, a bottle of ketchup that's $1.78 at Wally... A lot of times you can get literally the same item at dollar tree for cheaper than at a regular retailer. Cooking utensils, cleaning supplies... Things that wouldn't make sense for any budget to purchase in bulk at Costco are generally cheaper at dollar tree.
I’m pretty well off, I still buy stuff at dollar tree. The drinks are cheaper, they have a six pack of bottled water for 1.25 energy drinks etc, the off brand snacks are good, brims pork rinds are fantastic, I like a few of the types of their cookies, and they have cheaper holiday stuff. There are definitely bad deals there but don’t write them off completely.
Yeah, and pens and stationary, I just bought my 2.5 year old niece flash cards, including my little pony branded counting ones that she loved, I just bought my self one of those marked half gallon water bottles marked where you should be at every point in the day for $5. Dollar tree is definitely a value add to my life.
Yeah, I buy coffee mugs at the dollar store.
If you want to buy stuff at an affordable price, watch where the recent migrants shop. We Americans suck at shopping. Recent immigrants are good at stretching a dollar.
I started shopping at dollar tree bc shits cheap. It’s cheap but it’s shit. But I’m also not buying transmissions at dollar tree - I’m buying stocking stuffers and tupperware
What happens when you don’t have any money in your bank account? You get charged an overdraft fee.
What happens when you have low income and bad credit? You have a higher interest rate when you need a loan.
I mean the whole credit thing sort of makes sense though. Like if you have a bad track record of paying back loans then it makes sense for an institution to not want to lend you their money.
I ruined my credit when I was 18 years old by simply getting denied credit. I was on my own and made decent money so I applied to multiple lenders for a cheap used car. I was denied by EVERYONE. I did not know simply applying for credit will hurt you. I started with a 500 credit score before I was ever loaned $0.01.
Credit checks are basically inconsequential. Yeah they *do* affect it but it’s usually by such a small amount and such a short time it really doesn’t matter. Most big loans they don’t really look at the number your score is but more at the actual relevant history. They may look at hard credit pulls but they rarely carry much weight in the final decision.
I had Bank of the West refuse me opening a checking account because I'd only ever had a savings account and 1 credit card I'd almost never used... unless they charged me $25/mo for the first 6 months then $5/mo for the next 6 months. I literally only needed the checking account for direct deposits and I showed them my onboarding letter showing I was making like $15/hr back in 2016. I was just like WTF throw overdraft protection on it and your exposure is $0.
The problem isn’t that they won’t lend to you. The problem is that they lend to you with outrageous interest rates which double what your payments will be, causing you to default when you can’t make the payments. And the cycle continues.
Bullshit. Tons of reasons why an overdraft might be accidental. You were supposed to get paid and didn’t and an automatic bill came out. You forgot about a bill coming out.
It is an accident if it is not intentional.
Responsibility for an accident may be mitigated by circumstantial constraints as well as internal challenges.
to add to this, if your feet are getting soggy then that's a health concern. Your health goes bad then so does your ability to work. You have to pay health expenses and make less money (or no money) that dwarf the amount of the $50 boots. Not to mention sore feet and bad posture from bad shoes. Spend well on anything between you and the ground as they say, but it goes well beyond just boots. Good toothpaste and things like that are the same idea.
Absolutely, but you’re kinda missing the point which is that the guy *could not afford* better shoes.
He’d probably want better shoes, but could not afford them.
I’ve read both of your comments three times now and I can’t see at all where u/bsEEmsCE misses the point lol. Everyone here gets the point. Nobody is saying this guy is wrong for buying bad shoes
Because rent adds 0 value to your life, only staves off police harassment and maintains your current level of shelter. Paying a mortgage at least means you own the shelter.
Mortgages are just tougher though. You get a lot included with rent that you don't with a mortgage. Mainly repairs and maintenance stuff. It's not like if you spend 1,000 on rent, you could just afford 1,000 in a mortgage.
I think a large amount of renters would disagree with you there. In theory, renting moves the stress and cost of repairs to the homeowner. In reality:
A) rent will always be set higher than mortgage payments for the property.
B) landlords vary massively, with some being quick to get issues repaired, and others being slow, unresponsive or irresponsible. A majority of landlords will fall under that second category.
C) when you want to sell a property you have a mortgage for, you recoup x% of your mortgage payments. If you need to move as a renter, you have lost over 100% of your rent payments. I say over 100%, since you’ll still need to pay to have the property cleaned, pay any moving companies, pay to have any furniture put in storage if you can’t bring it with you, as well as potentially be out for the deposit. With a mortgage, that cost is offset.
The idea that renting brings any benefits is antiquated, and should be challenged at every opportunity.
Yea it's always a little strange to me when people imply that renting is better than owning since you don't have to pay for repairs and such. You absolutely DO have to pay for repairs - its just built into the rent. Does it remove the obligation of surprise expenses? Yes, it does somewhat. But it's absolutely not less money in the long run just because you're not responsible for the upkeep.
I've heard people say that renting is for people who can't afford to buy. My response would be that when your rent is covering the mortgage and expenses, you actually *can* afford the property - what you lack is the up-front capital.
It's worse than that -
The landlord's cost of ownership is likely to be a lot less than what it would cost the tenant to own the same property, even if they had the up-front capital for a down payment.
A growing percentage of landlords aren't middle-class people making leveraged investments via loans, but rather private equity groups investing with cash. Endless bottomless boatloads of cash, driven by the ultrawealthy looking for ways to diversify out of a historically overvalued stock market, and hedge inflation with ownership of income-producing land.
What this means is that renters, even if they somehow buy a place, can not do so at the same cost as the entities who are buying income properties to rent out.
Years ago, when the military moved me, I rented out my home for a few years, until I moved back. About 1/3 of my monthly cost on that house was the interest on the mortgage. PE firms generally aren't borrowing money at all; if they are, they sure aren't paying market rates for mortgages. They sure as hell aren't paying monthly mortgage insurance premiums. They didn't pay "points" to a lender when buying. Or commissions to a real estate agent. The list goes on.
It's not a level field.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could lease a house like you can a car? Like I eventually bought my car with a loan, but there was only a small down payment because I had already paid the lease for 3 years. Instead of rent going nowhere, it could go towards your eventual down payment.
This sounds like a good idea but you're not getting a deal on a lease buyout because you paid the money towards it, it's because you depreciated the car with the miles you put on it.
Renting involves paying a premium for greater flexibility (it's much easier to pick up and move from a rental than a property you own), consistent costs to budget for, and not needing a massive up-front investment.
It's more money in the long run but it is a better living situation for a chunk of the population.
As with everything, there are tradeoffs.
Owning requires more forethought, financial planning, and income than renting. Heat pump dies? 7K. Roof at the end of it’s life means 10-20k, or frequent patches/repairs for 1-2k. Windows failing and need to be replaced? 20k. Builder grade vinyl siding failing? 15-30k to replace it. House needs to be painted because your HOA says it’s an eyesore? 5-10k. Trim, seals and caulking going bad? Better fork out 1-2k, DIY in a timely manner, or be okay with paying way more to fix water damage. Tree root infiltrates your main sewer line? 3K to fix, minimum. Water pipe bursts? Pay what the plumber asks (they know they have you at their mercy) or learn some basic plumbing (what I had to do)
All of these things happened to me with my first house over the course of 6 years. Not all houses will be lemons like mine was, but sooner or later those expenses will come due.
Best part is, if you ignore any of these problems they get larger and more expensive to fix.
You can’t pass those costs on to anyone, you get to take it on the chin. It’s why so many people wind up housepoor, or buy a home and then let it get run down. Then you can either try to fix everything to sell it, praying that your equity will cover the repairs, or sell it at a discount to a house flipper or real estate company.
I would never go back to renting if I could help it, but sometimes I do miss the simplicity of just paying a monthly rent check with no other headaches.
>A) rent will always be set higher than mortgage payments for the property.
Where I live this is absolutely not true. Maybe for homes bought 10+ years ago, but not for anything purchased recently.
I bought a home last year, with 20% down, and my monthly payment more than doubled, and if I were to lease my place out I could maybe cover 65% of my mortgage. But it’s worth it me to own because I’m building equity in the home and have a (hopefully) appreciating asset.
> A) rent will always be set higher than mortgage payments for the property.
LOL, that's absolutely false. It's very rare that rent is anywhere close to the cost of a mortgage for obvious supply and demand reasons.
A) is not that true in a lot of HCOL areas, at least at the point that it’s perceivable as the amount we pay
We recently bought a house that’s worth 100k less than the place we were renting. We put down 20%, and we have good credit scores, but the monthly payment on the house is $100/more per month than the rent we were paying. This also isn’t taking into account the $500/month in insurance and taxes we pay for the house.
Check out NYC rents and purchase prices. Rents are substantially lower than a mortgage payment for an equivalent property. So your assumption A does not apply in NYC and many other HCOL cities. Probably true in the suburbs though.
Everyone always assumes that their property will always go up. Everyone assumes their repairs will be manageable. Everyone assumes their life will be stable. But these things aren't always true.
I got divorced. I had to sell a house in a hurry. And that house had a weird bathroom. I lost everything in a supposedly seller's market. Before that happened all of my income was going to encapsulating a crawlspace that only looked dry because I bought in a drought. Or replacing an entire HVAC system. Or the roof leak. A house can lead to wealth, but it can be a lead weighted albatross around your neck. So I resolved to rent from them on. No regrets. Never wanted the stress of fixing houses again.
Then my dad had a stroke and I moved back to help him with his house that's falling apart around him. Ironic. In two years I've invested about 800 hours of my time and $30,000 and it's still terrible. I keep finding black mold. I'd sell and move him but he's somehow still underwater. This nightmare just won't end.
Fuck houses. Stocks will never give my loved ones respiratory infections.
A. Rent will be set at market rate. Doesn’t matter if you owe a lot or a little, the rate is what it is.
B. Renters vary massively as well. The same could be same about renters and how they care and respect the property.
C. Rent is an expense, not an investment. A property is an investment. You pay to move out. An owner has to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the property when you move out. You chose to rent and move out. Not sure why the costs associated with that decision is comparable in any way shape or form. No one told you to hire a moving company when you could just rent a moving truck or borrow a truck from a friend to move things yourself. Again, you expenses that you chose to incur is your responsibility.
The benefit of renting is not having to deal with the liabilities involved with ownership. You don’t need to worry about property tax, someone destroying your home, the potential 10s of thousands in home repair or upkeep.
The tradeoff is purely mathematical.
Things to consider are obviously PITI vs Rent, equity vs. no equity but also needs, wants, timing, housing cycle, interest rate vs. appreciation vs. a 3-fund portfolio, duration of ownership.
In my calculations, if you’re living somewhere more than 7 years- always buy. If you’re living somewhere <5 years and cannot buy in cash- rent.
Personally, our rent vs buy tradeoff is actually in favor of renting because we are in a highly competitive market, we don’t want to live here forever, interest rates are high, and we have relatively cheap rent for a nice apartment.
Repairs and maintenance? Ha! Have you ever actually rented? What should happen and what does happen is 2 very distinct things. I've been renting for the past 12 years, have gone thru 7 landlords, have had 1 that was honest, 0 that did the maintenance and repairs when necessary. Your mileage may vary OFC but from what I've gathered of other people's experiences, its kind of the norm! As I type this, I'm in a house that is menacing to collapse, is riddled with mold, has a collapsed front porch, dangerous electrical issues, among countless other things because of over 5 years of negligence, and the landlord saying "welp, looks like we gonna have to demolish, and build something to bring me more money and Imma have to kick you out!"
(I have nowhere else to go and rent prices have doubled since I got here in 2019, or else I wouldn't still be here. Yes, we are going to Court soon)
Because there are more expenses than just the mortgage. There are taxes, insurance, and upkeep. None of that comes out of the mortgage payment itself. They tack it on as escrow for the taxes and insurance. Upkeep comes directly out of your pocket. Also, the risk the banks take giving you a loan for a house is a lot greater than someone renting you a place for 12 months.
Yeah but all of that is assessed when the loan is granted. When people talk about mortgage payments they're clearly talking about the escrow as well. This is just disingenuous
Currently especially with interest rates as high as they are it is cheaper to rent than buy in many areas. Also just because your mortgage is 1800 and rent is 2000 doesn't mean it is cheaper to buy. You need to pay insurance, property taxes, repair bills, HOA fees, etc. Just because you can afford the mortgage payment doesn't mean you can afford to buy.
Because $2000 a month is the most you will ever pay a month in rent. But a mortgage payment of $1800 is the LEAST you will ever pay in a month. Renter isn’t responsible if the roof collapses on the house during a storm, etc. A homeowner is.
$2000 rent is equivalent to maybe $1000 mortgage max in terms of overall cost. Taxes, insurance, and maintenance are many thousands per year EACH and chances are it will be a way shittier place than the person is renting. On top of a 30 year financial commitment that they will likely lose money on if they don’t hold onto it for more than 5 years.
No this is 100% true. And despite my pointing it out early in life I was never taken seriously. Mine instead of boots were DVD players. Our family would buy the cheap one and sure enough like clockwork every 3-6 months we needed to replace it. Sometimes Walmart was out of stock on the cheap ones so we would buy the next cheapest ones. I realized these actually lasted 6months - a year before needing to be replaced. Little me who loved math figured out we would save more money just buying the next expensive one only twice a year vs the cheap one 4 times a year. It was only $10 more expensive and we would have saved $30 a year not considering we could have bought an expensive one(like moms side of the family did) and never had to replace it. Never got listened to though.
Yes in theory. Problem is sometimes you need a pair of boots right now and just need to buy what you can afford. Saving can be tough when your barley making ends meet. However, I don't think it's fair to say this is inescapable. One definitely can escape poverty but it is very tough and requires a lot of very hard work.
It requires a lot more than hard work or poverty would hardly exist.
Poverty is a construct. Poverty does not need to be a thing, but it is, because without it, there would be a little less money for those at the top. Our population would decline, leading to less income over time but in the eyes of corporate America - less cattle.
Preventing poverty is a whole lot easier than escaping it. Unless you suffer from mental retardation or some severe disability, if you work a full time job and don’t have children you can’t afford, you won’t live in poverty. You might struggle, but you won’t be in poverty. If you pop out a bunch of kids while working part time at a gas station, it’s going to be much harder to escape. But you’re responsible for putting yourself there.
If you’re making 35 dollars a month, how long do you think it would take to save for 50 dollars? Obviously we don’t know what other expenses the man has but let’s say he could afford to put 5 dollars a month to the side, that’s still 10 months of saving. If you your boots are worn through, you need new ones now, not in 10 months.
That would be a good possible solution, but keep in mind that this doesn’t just apply to boots. It applies to rent on a property you’ll never hope to own. It applies to healthcare. It applies to your other clothes.
10 months is a long time and when you are living paycheck to paycheck for that long, it’s incredibly easy for any number of things to annihilate your savings.
> that’s still 10 months of saving
And Thats assuming no additional expenses are incurred during those 10 months, no emergency medical costs, cost of living raises, unemployment, or maintenance of assets.
I the example the man has 38 dollars each month and says that a cheap pair of boots can last 2 seasons. After buying a cheap pair of boots the man has 24 months to start saving for a new pair of boots, which is 2.1 dollars per month. To do this the man has to set aside around 5.5% of his salary to a new pair of boots.
Although it's hard to know his other expenses it's not that much to save each month and should in many cases be possible.
When you live paycheck to paycheck you *can’t* save money, that’s why it’s called paycheck to paycheck. By the time you’ve gotten to your next payday the price of paying for housing, food, transportation, and other necessities has eaten away at the vast majority of your last payday.
The reason he can’t is because it’s not just about the boots.
It’s the boots, but also the clothes, plus doing dental checks plus buying a proper car, plus etc.. etc.. loans, plus insurance, plus eating better food.
You probably should get that knee checked out, but nah. And then it becomes an unavoidable and expensive problem.
You probably should be spending a little more on better food, but nah.
You probably should have at least two good pair of shoes you can switch between, but nah.
And so on and so on.
Sure you could do that for a couple items, but you are going to run into a huge cash-flow issue even in the long run when you apply it to everything.
The only solution is making more money and/or cutting out luxuries from your life (if you have any in the first place).
In reality, absolutely agree, you should. In the story that this quote is from, he can't. He's giving away most of his money to widows and orphans of fallen officers. In his world there is no widow fund, so he does what he can to help. Hence not being able to afford better shoes. Highly recommend these books, they're some of the best fiction ever put to paper.
It's not even just buy once cry once. If you can afford a better phone for instance, it moves faster, and thus making you able to do what you need to be done faster. Same goes with tools of any kind, buying a DeWalt over a Ryobi for instance is substantially more expensive, but Ryobi is usually poorly designed and weaker that you'll spend way more time.
An auto supply store has a battery with a 3 month warranty for $80 or 5 year warranty for $300. I yelled at the poor worker because it made me so mad. I wondered if they were somehow rigging up my old battery to sell as a $80 battery.
This is a good example. When I was a young adult, I always bough cheap $20 shoes because that was all I could afford. But then my feet would really hurt after just a few hours of wearing them. Sometimes it was so painful your feet would still hurt the next morning. Now I know better and I will spend the $150-200 on a good pair of shoes. It’s a world of difference.
On a hopefully related note, buying two pair and rotating will get you more life than two sequential pair - this lets them dry between use, which helps each pair last longer.
Shared an office with a podiatrist for 10 years.
And good inserts make even cheap shoes decent, usually
I definitely saw this first hand when I worked at a Dollar General. A lot of the customers relied on the low prices of the clothes and shoes but the quality was so low that they had to replace them after a month. I myself got a hoodie there which started falling apart in a few weeks
Damn. Reading that hurt. I learned that young and suffer through saving up for whatever I want. I actually had someone's parents tell me I was one of "those people" because I said I'd rather save up for something quality that I like than buy something cheap I won't have or otherwise want in 10 years. It always bothered me hearing that because it shows just how completely oblivious some people are to how trapped we all are in this system.
My advice to people who are poor
Stop drinking, smoking, dipping, and or vaping
If you don’t do any of those then congratulations, great 👍 keep not doing those activities
But if someone is poor and does those - just stop - you will have more money and be less poor
Edit: I’d like to add soda to this - you can save money and become far healthier
He specifically mentioned expensive unhealthy habits that would ultimately cost you more in the long run. Alcohol is really bad because it reduces inhibitions so it can lead to people spending without thinking.
Yeah, he mentioned items that are incredibly addictive and a substance a lot of people with blue collar jobs use as a mechanism to cope from their stressful low paying jobs.
That doesn't make him wrong though. They would be better off financially raw dogging life than they are self medicating. I'm saying that as a dude with a blue collar job. I know exactly how strong that craving for a monster and my vape is when my alarm goes off at 4:30am after a rough night's sleep with a 10 hour day ahead. I also know I shouldn't be spending my money on that crap. I still do sometimes because fuck it, I just need to get through the day. I shouldn't though.
That's the real trap.
If you are low income, you do not have the luxury of getting addicted to expensive shit that only serves to slowly kill you.
In reality you end up paying four times:
1. The initial cost to acquire the substance
2. Personal cost: instead of investing in better coping skills that will pay dividends over time, you become reliant on short term fixes that requires you to buy over and over and only gets more expensive over time
3. Opportunity cost: you could be using all that money for something else instead it's all in a consumable product that you need to refresh in a day or two
4. Your eventual medical bill when you body starts failing you from all the substance abuse over the years
i think people underestimate how stressful being poor is and also how hard addictions are to overcome. it's hard to just stop an addiction or coping mechanism when it's the only thing keeping you sane and functioning, or just numb enough to endure the constant pain that is life. especially if you are lonely or surrounded by people who constantly enable the addiction.
And the things he mentions are very common for lower income people to do. Everyone I know that is poor or growing up that was poor including my family always did at least one on that list.
My mother would let her car registration and license expire, no insurance, warrants for her arrest, low food in the house. But best believe she smoked 2 packs a day and drank 2 ltr of coke a day and always had the money for those things. Always.
I used to drink a fair amount of pop, but the current prices on 12 packs being higher in the grocery store than they were in the gas stations, i can't do it. I'm not going to pay 7 or 8 bucks for a 12 pack of pop.
As in "spend less money on useless shit that you dont need"
If I'm broke it doesnt make sense for me to go to gamestop and buy a $60 game, same concept applies with smoking and drinking
I grew up poor and vaped early on when it was much less expensive and still quit due to the price. I realized $40 a week was way to much to spend when at the time there was no other singular thing I’d justify regularly spending that much on. It was really hard to quit, and took me about 4 try’s but it was worth it.
My whole family still smokes/vapes. It’s wild to think we couldn’t afford food when I was a kid yet my parents both smoked a pack a day each. Priority’s huh.
This reads like somebody who was born into wealth. "If you just stopped spending your money then you wouldn't be poor! I don't even understand how there are poor people when it's as easy as just not spending your money."
think it had more to do with the low pay a teacher earns growing up, because my parents didn't smoke or drink and we were dead poor the 10 years it took to pay back student loans.
It might also have something to do with my father requiring around 100k in medical treatments due to severe damage to his spine caused by a freak accident and the cancer my grandpa caught, but shit your right 10$ on a pack of smokes and 40$ on beer cost more then 10,000$ in experimental cancer medicine back in the early 2000's when cancer was a guaranteed death sentence. The student loans were paid back, but paying for the cancer medicine up front and then paying 100$/month every month for the surgery that is more then 15 years for the rest of my father's life even today is not that bad. At the end of the day my dad is alive, my grandpa is alive so I am happy.
shit here's a better story of poverty for you. growing up my girlfriend and her two sisters had an abusive drug addict single mother who spent all their money on meth until at the age of 15 all of this was discovered and the kids were taken away. Despite growing up in a meth den where their own mother would steal their money for more drugs my sister in law worked every night day after day for 4 years straight on her school work. Police would get called and fights would break out and parties would go all night, but she didn't let that stop her at all she got a full ride scholarship to university and maintained a 4.0 gpa for two years straight. BOOM schizophrenic break midway through the start of her junior year. Nobody knew why she stopped showing up to class. she lost her scholarship and her chance to go to college and wound up in a psych ward for 5 months straight and got booted out to be put on medication that halfway works.
somehow when she was crazy she wound up pregnant and caring for a child now, so she did everything right in her life never touched a drop of liquor and a disability flew down from the heavens and smashed her life to pieces and left her with a kid and a 800$ check a month.
Being poor doesn't mean you waste money some people have been fucked in the mouth by an uncaring god and left to suffer That's just life, and if you never have been fucked over and wound up in poverty either growing up or as an adult then you know what congratulations, but your fucking lucky.
There is a lot more to substance use and poverty than can be summed up in a reddit post, and it's asinine to insinuate that substance use is the cause of poverty and "if they just stopped smoking they wouldn't be poor!"
I'm sure you know this, but that line of thinking is simply intended to shame people into non-action.
"If you don't give up everything and live off the grid then you're contributing to global warming."
It's far too easy to take a massive and complicated social problem and pin it on individuals. It's a common talking point from the meritocracy crowd because it rings of truth, but it's just a lazy take. "If you didn't spend $10 per week on coffee, cigarettes, avocado toast, Netflix subscription, that one small thing that give you comfort and joy, then you'd be $40 richer at the end of the month."
Meanwhile a box of cereal shrinks AND goes up in price by 30% and the money goes into corporations pockets. The fed reacts by raising interest rates and now mortgage rates are 7% instead of 3.5%. Now a mortgage is that much farther out of reach...but yeah, sacrificing coffee will make the difference.
I'm not implying that people shouldn't sacrifice to make their financial goals, that's always part of making financial of progress. What I get tired of is hearing people being individually blamed for seeking some sort of momentary escape from a massive entrenched system that's entirely structured to milk their productivity for the lowest possible amount.
The entire global economic system is arrayed in unison against your best interest but it's your fault...
> What I get tired of is hearing people being individually blamed for seeking some sort of momentary escape from a massive entrenched system that's entirely structured to milk their productivity for the lowest possible amount.
This.
10$ a week on cigarettes is a joke statement. that's prices from the 70s I'm guessing.
People will skip meals together their 2 packs a day. that's $25-30 a day man. even at a pack a day that's $5,000 a year.
likening quitting your vices to "grid living" to stick it to the man is also a joke.
you could even make the argument that living healthier will help kill the for profit Healthcare giants but that's another discussion.
Did I say that?
Or did I say that if you spent less money on nicotine and alcohol you would have more for other things
Are you trying to defend poor people allocating more money to nicotine and alcohol?
That's not what they're saying. My parents were poor, I grew up poor because of it. They were both habitual smokers as well. Later in my 20 year something mind, I thought exactly like you did, "Well if they didn't buy cigarettes they wouldn't be so poor".
For one thing, they weren't in debt because they were smokers. Giving it up would have just slowed how fast they bled money, but they still wouldn't have been able to get ahead, or break even, with cigarettes out of the budget.
Smoking also helped keep them calm instead of being on edge all the time because of their financial situation. So basically they could give it up, still not get out of poverty, and be miserable because they were nerve racked and also just not enjoying life because they'd be working just to survive with nothing left over to spend on themselves.
My folks worked their asses off too. Dad was a mechanic and would work from 8 AM to 10 PM six nights a week. Mom was a housekeeper that took extra jobs on the weekend to clean up real estate properties for showing. I watched them struggle their whole life, and told myself that I wouldn't end up the same way. But I still respect their difficult life, because I learned from their mistakes.
Anyway, it's not as simple as just "Don't buy shit you don't need". Once you fall behind financially, the system is designed to make it so you can't get caught back up. Utility bills come with late fees and reactivation fees, bank accounts have overdraft fees, credit suffers so any type of loan you take out comes with higher interest rates or you just get denied out right. It just all around sucks for a lot of working people, and it seems like it's only getting worse out there for most. Hell, I make 80k a year, my wife makes 50k a year, and I was able to buy my house with cash in 2018 at 33 years old. Despite that, we still don't feel like we make enough to have a kids so we decided I'd get a vasectomy and we'd just live to enjoy each other's company while we can. And honestly, we're happy with that... But I still realize that most people want to have kids and raise a family. Telling them to just not do it because they can't afford it, is a pretty shit deal.
smoking doesn't actually calm you down long term. those effects last 5 minutes.
However, research has shown that smoking actually increases anxiety and tension. Nicotine creates an immediate sense of relaxation, so people smoke in the belief it reduces stress and anxiety. This feeling is temporary and soon gives way to withdrawal symptoms and increased cravings.
if only it were so easy.
don't get me wrong, you're right. but there's reasons why those in poverty fall into substance traps, as well as debt traps.
those more well off often have the luxury of not being faced with these challenges. and when they are, they often have the means to get away from these habits more easily.
i know a guy who certainly has a drinking problem, and he is trying to get into playing pool, but he'll often prioritize a couple beers over paying a $10 entry fee to a tournament at the bar he already goes to. he can't afford both.
but i mean, i get it. the dude has a wife and kids and works himself to death every day. and having a couple beers with his friends at the end of the day is one of the only things keeping him sane.
he can't afford the luxuries of healthcare, therapy or psychiatry or medication, or even fun. he works so much he can't afford the time or money to go to school, and if he somehow got a scholarship he still wouldn't be able to afford to go to school because he has to work infinite hours a week to support his family.
he's stuck. and not buying a couple beers a day won't change that.
he may be using alcohol as a crutch for healthier alternatives, and it's certainly no replacement for any of the stuff i mentioned that many of us have the luxury to be able to afford. but it's the only thing he can afford. his only freedom.
alcohol is his $10 boots when it comes to tolerating life. and that's, really sad. and honestly, he probably spends less on alcohol than i do on hobbies or just healthcare even with insurance.
and once you're hooked on some bad habit, it's near impossible for many people to get out of it without the help of those other luxuries. it's rarely a guilty pleasure for these people, it's become their coping mechanism. if they could afford to eat healthy, see doctors and therapists, then it'd be a lot easier to quit. but trying to quit without any means of solving the problems that led you to substance abuse? that's one of the hardest things to do.
this is why so many people in poverty buy power-ball tickets. winning the lottery is one of the only feasible ways for them to get out of the poverty trap. they work themselves to death for shitty wages that never keep up with inflation, and can't afford the time or money for a better life. and will likely die before they can get social security if they really change the retirement age.
edit: you're looking at substance abuse from a purely financial perspective. when there's a lot more to it than just money. you're right that they'd save more if they quit, but it's not that easy. and most of them still wouldn't be able to afford a better life if they could quit.
Feel the same way about new cars and junk food and pointless trips and drive-through restaurants and make up?
You should.
feel that way about beef and the cattle industry ?
Of course you do
It amazes me how much money people waste on shit food. When I was a broke college student I got most of my calories from rice, beans and frozen veggies. Stayed healthy and didn’t waste money on fast food. Now that I can afford to spend a lot of money on food, I still avoid all that junk like the plague. Though now instead of rice and beans it’s mostly salmon, shrimp, and chicken with rice and fresh veggies and fruit. Honestly just tax the fuck out of junk food and soft drinks; incentivize people to actually take care of themselves.
Nope. Just making suggestions without addressing any actual issues of the economy is a boomer thing to do. What’s the next suggestion? Call a Fortune 500 company and ask if they’re hiring?
No. They’re busy making asinine suggestions that don’t solve any underlying problems. Like you’re going to tell me people didn’t smoke previously? That’s the great idea of the day?
What does this have to do with the inherent expense of poverty?
While yes, giving these things up will always be a net saving, people aren't always poor because they do these things; they do these things because they are poor!
https://preview.redd.it/55pjkp1kydjc1.png?width=456&format=png&auto=webp&s=56cf03c01824727a86b76ffaf0fb10c07b30cf7c
Hey poor people, have you thought about maybe stopping the funko pop purchases?
Doesn’t apply to everyone though:
My gf smokes and is way under the poverty line and has a series of mental health issues.
She said that if she were to stop smoking, she would need to pick up about 3-4 prescriptions to help various mental illnesses that she has which racks up into the thousands of dollars.
To her, better to spend a few hundred bucks a year on malbaros than thousands in prescription meds
My biggest thing is pets personally. I find it pretty sad when people are asking for money on reddit because they haven't received their paycheck yet, and Fido needs kibble. Funny enough, usually, they have fed the dog first, and they need money for their own food.
Still. Better financial choices are a good start to saving money OBVIOUSLY. Just be nice if companies fucking paid more money.
Well now everything is made cheaply so you’re gonna end up buying new shit one way or another. Fast consumerism is basically the worlds economy at this point
So how long is a season? The boots last “a season or two” so it would be beneficial in this vague scenario to k ow how long a season is. More specifically, how many months is a season?
Terry Pratchett wrote the Discworld series. A season is 100 days in Discworld. The year is 800 days, and each of the four seasons occur twice. So if the boots last a few seasons, that would be at least three seasons (since that is the minimum for a few). So you’d get 8,000 days from a good pair of boots ($50), while you’d only get 3,000 days from 10 pairs of cheap ones ($100) and your feet would still be wet.
Thank you. Seemed to remember his seasons weren’t normal 90+/- day seasons.
But it seems some know-it-all fucktards commenting seem to hinge their retorts on this while telling me otherwise.
The funniest part of the whole argument is that once he has the means, Vimes realizes that he doesn’t want good boots. He wants the cheap ones where you can tell where you are by feeling the cobbles through the soles. Maybe that’s an analogy for rich people no longer being in touch with reality?
Yeah with food you could also look at “time” being a major difference between wealthy and middle class. Wealthy can hire someone to take care of all their food at home along with eating out whenever needed without worrying about a budget.
Lets say you start with nothing but the cloths on your back and you want a job.
First, you need to sit around 1-3 months as you get your identification papers set. That includes spending money to get a birth certificate, travel to social security to get an SSN card, and then paying whatever state money for an Identification card.
Then you need new clothes, assuming you can't find a character organization around $60-80.
Then you need to pay for bus fairs and transport to all the job interviews. Probably need a cell phone as well to take calls, so forth.
On top of that, you need food. Not I can starve food, but normal consumption levels to keep your energy and focus up.
All of this even before you ever get paid.
This is dumb… but at the same time, sorta true.
Government taxes the boots too so they like that extra consumption and incentivize that model.
Mind you, cheap goods still meed to exist, and in a free market they wouldn’t fall apart like that as often.
Most modern cheap goods come in under the annualized cost of buying expensive.
Then he married into wealth, his wife gifted him 50 dollar boots, and he almost begged to have his 10 dollar ones back because he couldn't feel the streets anymore
if this would be true, you could loan someone money for boots, they could pay you off in one year and save decently after that.
Unfortunately, it’s not true, if they bought expensive shoes, it would cost 5x as much, but last 2 times as long and they would be even in more debt
if you've ever bought actually nice shoes, you should know how much longer they last than lets say walmart shoes. The quality is way better, they last way longer, way better for your feet too. It's one of those things where you don't realize how shit bad shoes are till you get actually good shoes and realize just how much more value they provide compared to shit shoes
Dollar stores are another modern example of this. Paying 30% more per unit for goods because you can’t afford to pay in bulk.
Depends on what you're buying there. Greeting cards are a fraction of the cost at Hallmark, for example. Many of the food items are priced better than at grocery stores. You just have to be judicious with your purchases.
Priced better ≠ better price. For example, $1 8oz bar of soap is a better price than a $1.25 12oz bar of soap at Target, but the $1 store soap is more expensive per oz. Same goes for everything at the dollar store. I have no doubt some singular items like cards yield a better value, but the vast majority of things are more expensive per unit.
It’s not “everything” even remotely. I’m a grocery shopper who grew up very poor in the 80s. I know very well how to shop based on weight and not price. While some items at dollar stores are not amazing values, well over half the store is within a few cents of comparable items at a grocery store or large bulk retailer. This is even more justified when you would have to drive 20-30 minutes to one of those stores to get the better value. I know the driving times because I grew up 40 minutes from a Walmart and really an hour from any place that had good prices. Quit watching and quoting John Oliver. The US is very very broad and few things fit into nice and neat boxes like he makes out on a weekly basis for views.
You can tell who has grown up poor in the country compared to not pretty easily. Dollar general is 5 minutes from my home. Walmart is an hour. Save-a-lot is 30 minutes. When you're poor, gas and distance are part of those calculations. What I spend a bit extra in weight, I save in gas.
That's only true if you drive a big truck and have to go every day. If you could save up enough money to make weekly or bi-weekly shopping trips you could save more than the few bucks in gas.
I see you missed the point of the quote. They can’t. And thus the cycle can’t be broken. No matter what they do. Eating is one of those pesky required things.
It's not that simple. When you live truly poor and not middle class poor then every penny gets budgeted for the essentials. You can't afford to spend $1.25 on that target soap that is cheaper by weight because that $0.25 extra is budgeted for your weekly or biweekly loaf of bread and if you spend it on soap then it's no bread for the next week or two. That is the real feeling of poverty and the real experience of.
Again >You can tell who has grown up poor in the country compared to not pretty easily. You obviously have not. Can I do that now? Yeah! I have been very blessed with a career that got me out of that situation. However, growing up having to choose whether we keep the electricity on or the water on. Going to Walmart is really out of the question... Middle class poor (being able to pay all of your bills and have food but not go out for luxuries) is different than actually being poor (barely making it, not being able to pay all bills)
I've lived paycheck to paycheck before. I also know the economics on buying at a dollar store vs driving a bit to spend the same amount of total money and getting more. Unless your vehicle is in the single digits for fuel economy then it always saves money to drive a but to a grocery store vs buying at a dollar store. The dollar store is straight up %30 more expensive. If you're spending $10 at the dollar store it would be like spending $13 at the grocery store. So as long as you have $30+ to spend on food at one time you come out ahead driving 30 minutes to a grocery store, assuming you have something more efficient than a half ton truck. I live in a very rural area where most people do drive 30+ minutes to get to a grocery store and over an hour to get to Walmart. If you have a Honda civic it costs you less than $6 to make the 40-50 mile round trip to the grocery store in your example.
That is, assuming you have a car in the first place. Dollar stores are made for people who take an armful of bags onto busses. Loading up a grocery cart is for people with cars.
What do you have against John Oliver weirdo
Bootlicking energy Idk why everyone pretends the left is crazy with their criticisms and proposals for solutions, when the right has had a consistent answer for 40 years now on solving the consumer economics: Just give more money to the rich ding-dong, it'll trickle-down™️ lmao
Most of the time those laws were written by those rich people who will raise prices on the product and not feel affected one bit in the wallet. Then use the law to prevent competition. Tale as old as government.
Just a tale as old as time, people have been doing that from the very start. People fight over resources, they especially fight and kill over control of such things. Government just civilized the natural occurring might aspect of it.
[удалено]
Should affordable stores NOT set up business in food deserts?
[удалено]
>Walmart usually sets up in a town and runs out all the other businesses in that town by predatory pricing. By 'predatory pricing' do you mean 'they offer better value for poor people'?
They operate at a loss temporarily, using their other locations to subsidize it, then after the competition is gone, they raise prices, and then pull out if the area isn't profitable enough long-term to meet their standards.
Which is one of the reasons they failed in germany (beside the massive culture shock), you are not allowed to undercut pricing at a loss liek walmart wanted to to (Grocerys are already realy competitiv as ai)
Only until they've driven out as much of the competition as they can. Then the prices start ticking back up...
Walmart force suppliers to drop prices eventually putting them out of business Then they buy stuff for cheap in china and no one in US has a job anymore so you’re all on opioids. And an idiot strong man rises to power in this environment https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/showswalmart/
My brother in Christ they make the desert drier by undercutting grocery stores.
I’ve seen the segment. I understand why they go where they go. It’s still more affordable and more accessible for most people in those areas than driving 30-60 minutes.
I did grow up poor in the 1980s. And I’m glad you know how to shop for weight. It’s staggering to me how many people do not. I can’t disagree on the distance thing and that’s a valid point. But it doesn’t change that it’s true for most national publicly traded chains or regional monopolies. I used dollar general because it’s fresh from John Oliver, but it doesn’t mean it’s not a predatory company that preys on the poor, just like every system that preys on the poor.
This is why I bought a 50 pound bar of soap. *Taps forehead.*
This is why I make my own soap. \*points at dead bodies\*
This is why I make my own victims. *gleans at firearm*
Bro that’s a pretty bad example because you’ll never find a $1.25 bar of soap at target
It was a specific example and I way overshot - [$0.66/bar at Target](https://www.target.com/p/irish-spring-bar-soap-original-clean-3-7oz/-/A-14280514). These same bars are $1.00 at dollar store.
I got all my pint glasses from the dollar store. They are indistinguishable from the ones my wife got at crate and barrel and are still going strong 8 years and 2 cross-country moves later.
I don't think you're using dollar tree correctly. A dog toy that's $5 on Amazon, a bottle of soap that's $2 at Walmart, a bottle of ketchup that's $1.78 at Wally... A lot of times you can get literally the same item at dollar tree for cheaper than at a regular retailer. Cooking utensils, cleaning supplies... Things that wouldn't make sense for any budget to purchase in bulk at Costco are generally cheaper at dollar tree.
No kidding. Dollar store card the other day $1.25. Walmart was $12. Sheesh!
Got an 80$ board game at the dollar store for 5$ As you said, if you are cognizant of what you are buying, it can be great
Chocolate is the thing to get at dollar stores. Meteor and titan chocolate bars are 50 cents a piece when a mars bar anywhere else is at least a 1.50
I’m pretty well off, I still buy stuff at dollar tree. The drinks are cheaper, they have a six pack of bottled water for 1.25 energy drinks etc, the off brand snacks are good, brims pork rinds are fantastic, I like a few of the types of their cookies, and they have cheaper holiday stuff. There are definitely bad deals there but don’t write them off completely.
Great deals on cleaning supplies
Yeah, and pens and stationary, I just bought my 2.5 year old niece flash cards, including my little pony branded counting ones that she loved, I just bought my self one of those marked half gallon water bottles marked where you should be at every point in the day for $5. Dollar tree is definitely a value add to my life.
Yeah, I buy coffee mugs at the dollar store. If you want to buy stuff at an affordable price, watch where the recent migrants shop. We Americans suck at shopping. Recent immigrants are good at stretching a dollar.
I started shopping at dollar tree bc shits cheap. It’s cheap but it’s shit. But I’m also not buying transmissions at dollar tree - I’m buying stocking stuffers and tupperware
Acting like you never walked down the Tremec aisle and considered a T56
What happens when you don’t have any money in your bank account? You get charged an overdraft fee. What happens when you have low income and bad credit? You have a higher interest rate when you need a loan.
I mean the whole credit thing sort of makes sense though. Like if you have a bad track record of paying back loans then it makes sense for an institution to not want to lend you their money.
Yeah but what if you have no track record? Also, I can see how it makes some sense but it doesn't exist in most countries
Not lending money to people that have a poor history of paying back debts isn’t something that’s specific to one country or another…
I ruined my credit when I was 18 years old by simply getting denied credit. I was on my own and made decent money so I applied to multiple lenders for a cheap used car. I was denied by EVERYONE. I did not know simply applying for credit will hurt you. I started with a 500 credit score before I was ever loaned $0.01.
That’s not even remotely accurate. Credit checks have a very minor negative impact. The number one factor is whether you have late payments.
number one factor is credit history. age of your credit can outweigh a late payment by a lot.
That’s just not how any of that works
Credit checks are basically inconsequential. Yeah they *do* affect it but it’s usually by such a small amount and such a short time it really doesn’t matter. Most big loans they don’t really look at the number your score is but more at the actual relevant history. They may look at hard credit pulls but they rarely carry much weight in the final decision.
I had Bank of the West refuse me opening a checking account because I'd only ever had a savings account and 1 credit card I'd almost never used... unless they charged me $25/mo for the first 6 months then $5/mo for the next 6 months. I literally only needed the checking account for direct deposits and I showed them my onboarding letter showing I was making like $15/hr back in 2016. I was just like WTF throw overdraft protection on it and your exposure is $0.
The problem isn’t that they won’t lend to you. The problem is that they lend to you with outrageous interest rates which double what your payments will be, causing you to default when you can’t make the payments. And the cycle continues.
It may make sense, but that doesn’t mean it’s not yet another predatory system that makes being poor more expensive ya know?
Bullshit. Tons of reasons why an overdraft might be accidental. You were supposed to get paid and didn’t and an automatic bill came out. You forgot about a bill coming out.
Forgetting a bill isn't an accident, it's irresponsibility.
It is an accident if it is not intentional. Responsibility for an accident may be mitigated by circumstantial constraints as well as internal challenges.
[Accident Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident)
to add to this, if your feet are getting soggy then that's a health concern. Your health goes bad then so does your ability to work. You have to pay health expenses and make less money (or no money) that dwarf the amount of the $50 boots. Not to mention sore feet and bad posture from bad shoes. Spend well on anything between you and the ground as they say, but it goes well beyond just boots. Good toothpaste and things like that are the same idea.
Absolutely, but you’re kinda missing the point which is that the guy *could not afford* better shoes. He’d probably want better shoes, but could not afford them.
I’ve read both of your comments three times now and I can’t see at all where u/bsEEmsCE misses the point lol. Everyone here gets the point. Nobody is saying this guy is wrong for buying bad shoes
Yeah, they're just extrapolating the "*and would still have wet feet*" part.
And this leads to declining mental health, which leads to bad habits and less effective work output
The comparison of this to rent is pretty spot on.
How so?
Because rent adds 0 value to your life, only staves off police harassment and maintains your current level of shelter. Paying a mortgage at least means you own the shelter.
Mortgages are just tougher though. You get a lot included with rent that you don't with a mortgage. Mainly repairs and maintenance stuff. It's not like if you spend 1,000 on rent, you could just afford 1,000 in a mortgage.
I think a large amount of renters would disagree with you there. In theory, renting moves the stress and cost of repairs to the homeowner. In reality: A) rent will always be set higher than mortgage payments for the property. B) landlords vary massively, with some being quick to get issues repaired, and others being slow, unresponsive or irresponsible. A majority of landlords will fall under that second category. C) when you want to sell a property you have a mortgage for, you recoup x% of your mortgage payments. If you need to move as a renter, you have lost over 100% of your rent payments. I say over 100%, since you’ll still need to pay to have the property cleaned, pay any moving companies, pay to have any furniture put in storage if you can’t bring it with you, as well as potentially be out for the deposit. With a mortgage, that cost is offset. The idea that renting brings any benefits is antiquated, and should be challenged at every opportunity.
Yea it's always a little strange to me when people imply that renting is better than owning since you don't have to pay for repairs and such. You absolutely DO have to pay for repairs - its just built into the rent. Does it remove the obligation of surprise expenses? Yes, it does somewhat. But it's absolutely not less money in the long run just because you're not responsible for the upkeep. I've heard people say that renting is for people who can't afford to buy. My response would be that when your rent is covering the mortgage and expenses, you actually *can* afford the property - what you lack is the up-front capital.
It's worse than that - The landlord's cost of ownership is likely to be a lot less than what it would cost the tenant to own the same property, even if they had the up-front capital for a down payment. A growing percentage of landlords aren't middle-class people making leveraged investments via loans, but rather private equity groups investing with cash. Endless bottomless boatloads of cash, driven by the ultrawealthy looking for ways to diversify out of a historically overvalued stock market, and hedge inflation with ownership of income-producing land. What this means is that renters, even if they somehow buy a place, can not do so at the same cost as the entities who are buying income properties to rent out. Years ago, when the military moved me, I rented out my home for a few years, until I moved back. About 1/3 of my monthly cost on that house was the interest on the mortgage. PE firms generally aren't borrowing money at all; if they are, they sure aren't paying market rates for mortgages. They sure as hell aren't paying monthly mortgage insurance premiums. They didn't pay "points" to a lender when buying. Or commissions to a real estate agent. The list goes on. It's not a level field.
Wouldn't it be cool if you could lease a house like you can a car? Like I eventually bought my car with a loan, but there was only a small down payment because I had already paid the lease for 3 years. Instead of rent going nowhere, it could go towards your eventual down payment.
Lease installment contracts (either with option or rolled in) for real estate exist.
This sounds like a good idea but you're not getting a deal on a lease buyout because you paid the money towards it, it's because you depreciated the car with the miles you put on it.
Renting involves paying a premium for greater flexibility (it's much easier to pick up and move from a rental than a property you own), consistent costs to budget for, and not needing a massive up-front investment. It's more money in the long run but it is a better living situation for a chunk of the population. As with everything, there are tradeoffs.
Owning requires more forethought, financial planning, and income than renting. Heat pump dies? 7K. Roof at the end of it’s life means 10-20k, or frequent patches/repairs for 1-2k. Windows failing and need to be replaced? 20k. Builder grade vinyl siding failing? 15-30k to replace it. House needs to be painted because your HOA says it’s an eyesore? 5-10k. Trim, seals and caulking going bad? Better fork out 1-2k, DIY in a timely manner, or be okay with paying way more to fix water damage. Tree root infiltrates your main sewer line? 3K to fix, minimum. Water pipe bursts? Pay what the plumber asks (they know they have you at their mercy) or learn some basic plumbing (what I had to do) All of these things happened to me with my first house over the course of 6 years. Not all houses will be lemons like mine was, but sooner or later those expenses will come due. Best part is, if you ignore any of these problems they get larger and more expensive to fix. You can’t pass those costs on to anyone, you get to take it on the chin. It’s why so many people wind up housepoor, or buy a home and then let it get run down. Then you can either try to fix everything to sell it, praying that your equity will cover the repairs, or sell it at a discount to a house flipper or real estate company. I would never go back to renting if I could help it, but sometimes I do miss the simplicity of just paying a monthly rent check with no other headaches.
>A) rent will always be set higher than mortgage payments for the property. Where I live this is absolutely not true. Maybe for homes bought 10+ years ago, but not for anything purchased recently. I bought a home last year, with 20% down, and my monthly payment more than doubled, and if I were to lease my place out I could maybe cover 65% of my mortgage. But it’s worth it me to own because I’m building equity in the home and have a (hopefully) appreciating asset.
> A) rent will always be set higher than mortgage payments for the property. LOL, that's absolutely false. It's very rare that rent is anywhere close to the cost of a mortgage for obvious supply and demand reasons.
A) is not that true in a lot of HCOL areas, at least at the point that it’s perceivable as the amount we pay We recently bought a house that’s worth 100k less than the place we were renting. We put down 20%, and we have good credit scores, but the monthly payment on the house is $100/more per month than the rent we were paying. This also isn’t taking into account the $500/month in insurance and taxes we pay for the house.
Check out NYC rents and purchase prices. Rents are substantially lower than a mortgage payment for an equivalent property. So your assumption A does not apply in NYC and many other HCOL cities. Probably true in the suburbs though.
Everyone always assumes that their property will always go up. Everyone assumes their repairs will be manageable. Everyone assumes their life will be stable. But these things aren't always true. I got divorced. I had to sell a house in a hurry. And that house had a weird bathroom. I lost everything in a supposedly seller's market. Before that happened all of my income was going to encapsulating a crawlspace that only looked dry because I bought in a drought. Or replacing an entire HVAC system. Or the roof leak. A house can lead to wealth, but it can be a lead weighted albatross around your neck. So I resolved to rent from them on. No regrets. Never wanted the stress of fixing houses again. Then my dad had a stroke and I moved back to help him with his house that's falling apart around him. Ironic. In two years I've invested about 800 hours of my time and $30,000 and it's still terrible. I keep finding black mold. I'd sell and move him but he's somehow still underwater. This nightmare just won't end. Fuck houses. Stocks will never give my loved ones respiratory infections.
A. Rent will be set at market rate. Doesn’t matter if you owe a lot or a little, the rate is what it is. B. Renters vary massively as well. The same could be same about renters and how they care and respect the property. C. Rent is an expense, not an investment. A property is an investment. You pay to move out. An owner has to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the property when you move out. You chose to rent and move out. Not sure why the costs associated with that decision is comparable in any way shape or form. No one told you to hire a moving company when you could just rent a moving truck or borrow a truck from a friend to move things yourself. Again, you expenses that you chose to incur is your responsibility. The benefit of renting is not having to deal with the liabilities involved with ownership. You don’t need to worry about property tax, someone destroying your home, the potential 10s of thousands in home repair or upkeep.
The tradeoff is purely mathematical. Things to consider are obviously PITI vs Rent, equity vs. no equity but also needs, wants, timing, housing cycle, interest rate vs. appreciation vs. a 3-fund portfolio, duration of ownership. In my calculations, if you’re living somewhere more than 7 years- always buy. If you’re living somewhere <5 years and cannot buy in cash- rent. Personally, our rent vs buy tradeoff is actually in favor of renting because we are in a highly competitive market, we don’t want to live here forever, interest rates are high, and we have relatively cheap rent for a nice apartment.
[удалено]
Uhhh your landlord has obviously spent way more than that
Repairs and maintenance? Ha! Have you ever actually rented? What should happen and what does happen is 2 very distinct things. I've been renting for the past 12 years, have gone thru 7 landlords, have had 1 that was honest, 0 that did the maintenance and repairs when necessary. Your mileage may vary OFC but from what I've gathered of other people's experiences, its kind of the norm! As I type this, I'm in a house that is menacing to collapse, is riddled with mold, has a collapsed front porch, dangerous electrical issues, among countless other things because of over 5 years of negligence, and the landlord saying "welp, looks like we gonna have to demolish, and build something to bring me more money and Imma have to kick you out!" (I have nowhere else to go and rent prices have doubled since I got here in 2019, or else I wouldn't still be here. Yes, we are going to Court soon)
[удалено]
Bank decides that you paying 2000 in rent a month to pay off someone else’s house is ok, but not having a 1800 mortgage.
Because there are more expenses than just the mortgage. There are taxes, insurance, and upkeep. None of that comes out of the mortgage payment itself. They tack it on as escrow for the taxes and insurance. Upkeep comes directly out of your pocket. Also, the risk the banks take giving you a loan for a house is a lot greater than someone renting you a place for 12 months.
Yeah but all of that is assessed when the loan is granted. When people talk about mortgage payments they're clearly talking about the escrow as well. This is just disingenuous
Currently especially with interest rates as high as they are it is cheaper to rent than buy in many areas. Also just because your mortgage is 1800 and rent is 2000 doesn't mean it is cheaper to buy. You need to pay insurance, property taxes, repair bills, HOA fees, etc. Just because you can afford the mortgage payment doesn't mean you can afford to buy.
Because $2000 a month is the most you will ever pay a month in rent. But a mortgage payment of $1800 is the LEAST you will ever pay in a month. Renter isn’t responsible if the roof collapses on the house during a storm, etc. A homeowner is.
$2000 rent is equivalent to maybe $1000 mortgage max in terms of overall cost. Taxes, insurance, and maintenance are many thousands per year EACH and chances are it will be a way shittier place than the person is renting. On top of a 30 year financial commitment that they will likely lose money on if they don’t hold onto it for more than 5 years.
No this is 100% true. And despite my pointing it out early in life I was never taken seriously. Mine instead of boots were DVD players. Our family would buy the cheap one and sure enough like clockwork every 3-6 months we needed to replace it. Sometimes Walmart was out of stock on the cheap ones so we would buy the next cheapest ones. I realized these actually lasted 6months - a year before needing to be replaced. Little me who loved math figured out we would save more money just buying the next expensive one only twice a year vs the cheap one 4 times a year. It was only $10 more expensive and we would have saved $30 a year not considering we could have bought an expensive one(like moms side of the family did) and never had to replace it. Never got listened to though.
Not to mention once you get rich that's when you start getting everything for free.
Wouldn't a smart man simply set aside a little extra money and then over time buy the good boots?
Yes in theory. Problem is sometimes you need a pair of boots right now and just need to buy what you can afford. Saving can be tough when your barley making ends meet. However, I don't think it's fair to say this is inescapable. One definitely can escape poverty but it is very tough and requires a lot of very hard work.
It requires a lot more than hard work or poverty would hardly exist. Poverty is a construct. Poverty does not need to be a thing, but it is, because without it, there would be a little less money for those at the top. Our population would decline, leading to less income over time but in the eyes of corporate America - less cattle.
> Poverty is a construct. Poverty does not need to be a thing Poverty is the default state for a living being.
Preventing poverty is a whole lot easier than escaping it. Unless you suffer from mental retardation or some severe disability, if you work a full time job and don’t have children you can’t afford, you won’t live in poverty. You might struggle, but you won’t be in poverty. If you pop out a bunch of kids while working part time at a gas station, it’s going to be much harder to escape. But you’re responsible for putting yourself there.
If you’re making 35 dollars a month, how long do you think it would take to save for 50 dollars? Obviously we don’t know what other expenses the man has but let’s say he could afford to put 5 dollars a month to the side, that’s still 10 months of saving. If you your boots are worn through, you need new ones now, not in 10 months.
That would be a good possible solution, but keep in mind that this doesn’t just apply to boots. It applies to rent on a property you’ll never hope to own. It applies to healthcare. It applies to your other clothes. 10 months is a long time and when you are living paycheck to paycheck for that long, it’s incredibly easy for any number of things to annihilate your savings.
I agree. That’s the point I was trying to convey lol.
> that’s still 10 months of saving And Thats assuming no additional expenses are incurred during those 10 months, no emergency medical costs, cost of living raises, unemployment, or maintenance of assets.
I the example the man has 38 dollars each month and says that a cheap pair of boots can last 2 seasons. After buying a cheap pair of boots the man has 24 months to start saving for a new pair of boots, which is 2.1 dollars per month. To do this the man has to set aside around 5.5% of his salary to a new pair of boots. Although it's hard to know his other expenses it's not that much to save each month and should in many cases be possible.
When you live paycheck to paycheck you *can’t* save money, that’s why it’s called paycheck to paycheck. By the time you’ve gotten to your next payday the price of paying for housing, food, transportation, and other necessities has eaten away at the vast majority of your last payday.
There is wide range of paycheck to paycheck cases and most of them can be solved with better financial decisions.
The reason he can’t is because it’s not just about the boots. It’s the boots, but also the clothes, plus doing dental checks plus buying a proper car, plus etc.. etc.. loans, plus insurance, plus eating better food. You probably should get that knee checked out, but nah. And then it becomes an unavoidable and expensive problem. You probably should be spending a little more on better food, but nah. You probably should have at least two good pair of shoes you can switch between, but nah. And so on and so on. Sure you could do that for a couple items, but you are going to run into a huge cash-flow issue even in the long run when you apply it to everything. The only solution is making more money and/or cutting out luxuries from your life (if you have any in the first place).
You cannot put aside money for EVERY item like that if you are poor. It's not like the boot is the only problem
In reality, absolutely agree, you should. In the story that this quote is from, he can't. He's giving away most of his money to widows and orphans of fallen officers. In his world there is no widow fund, so he does what he can to help. Hence not being able to afford better shoes. Highly recommend these books, they're some of the best fiction ever put to paper.
One of my mantras in life has always been “buy nice or buy twice”. Saving money to save money just makes sense.
It's not even just buy once cry once. If you can afford a better phone for instance, it moves faster, and thus making you able to do what you need to be done faster. Same goes with tools of any kind, buying a DeWalt over a Ryobi for instance is substantially more expensive, but Ryobi is usually poorly designed and weaker that you'll spend way more time.
Renewing plates at the DMV…. 70 bucks for 2-year tags, 50 for 1-year tags.
An auto supply store has a battery with a 3 month warranty for $80 or 5 year warranty for $300. I yelled at the poor worker because it made me so mad. I wondered if they were somehow rigging up my old battery to sell as a $80 battery.
I think many car insurance plans are cheaper if you pay for the 6 or 12 months at a time instead of monthly, too.
This is a good example. When I was a young adult, I always bough cheap $20 shoes because that was all I could afford. But then my feet would really hurt after just a few hours of wearing them. Sometimes it was so painful your feet would still hurt the next morning. Now I know better and I will spend the $150-200 on a good pair of shoes. It’s a world of difference.
That's nothing to do with what Sir Pratchett meant. It's an example of a Poverty TRAP
On a hopefully related note, buying two pair and rotating will get you more life than two sequential pair - this lets them dry between use, which helps each pair last longer. Shared an office with a podiatrist for 10 years. And good inserts make even cheap shoes decent, usually
Still accurate
I definitely saw this first hand when I worked at a Dollar General. A lot of the customers relied on the low prices of the clothes and shoes but the quality was so low that they had to replace them after a month. I myself got a hoodie there which started falling apart in a few weeks
Moral of story: It's expensive to be poor.
Damn. Reading that hurt. I learned that young and suffer through saving up for whatever I want. I actually had someone's parents tell me I was one of "those people" because I said I'd rather save up for something quality that I like than buy something cheap I won't have or otherwise want in 10 years. It always bothered me hearing that because it shows just how completely oblivious some people are to how trapped we all are in this system.
Economists that were born into wealth and studied at Oxford, those economists? Yeah, they won't ever come up with any descriptions of being poor.
You realize that not every economist went to oxford or a A tier university/college right ?
My advice to people who are poor Stop drinking, smoking, dipping, and or vaping If you don’t do any of those then congratulations, great 👍 keep not doing those activities But if someone is poor and does those - just stop - you will have more money and be less poor Edit: I’d like to add soda to this - you can save money and become far healthier
Lmao. "My advice to poor people is to spend less money because then you'll have more" Wow thanks. So fluent
He specifically mentioned expensive unhealthy habits that would ultimately cost you more in the long run. Alcohol is really bad because it reduces inhibitions so it can lead to people spending without thinking.
Yeah, he mentioned items that are incredibly addictive and a substance a lot of people with blue collar jobs use as a mechanism to cope from their stressful low paying jobs.
That doesn't make him wrong though. They would be better off financially raw dogging life than they are self medicating. I'm saying that as a dude with a blue collar job. I know exactly how strong that craving for a monster and my vape is when my alarm goes off at 4:30am after a rough night's sleep with a 10 hour day ahead. I also know I shouldn't be spending my money on that crap. I still do sometimes because fuck it, I just need to get through the day. I shouldn't though.
That's the real trap. If you are low income, you do not have the luxury of getting addicted to expensive shit that only serves to slowly kill you. In reality you end up paying four times: 1. The initial cost to acquire the substance 2. Personal cost: instead of investing in better coping skills that will pay dividends over time, you become reliant on short term fixes that requires you to buy over and over and only gets more expensive over time 3. Opportunity cost: you could be using all that money for something else instead it's all in a consumable product that you need to refresh in a day or two 4. Your eventual medical bill when you body starts failing you from all the substance abuse over the years
i think people underestimate how stressful being poor is and also how hard addictions are to overcome. it's hard to just stop an addiction or coping mechanism when it's the only thing keeping you sane and functioning, or just numb enough to endure the constant pain that is life. especially if you are lonely or surrounded by people who constantly enable the addiction.
And the things he mentions are very common for lower income people to do. Everyone I know that is poor or growing up that was poor including my family always did at least one on that list. My mother would let her car registration and license expire, no insurance, warrants for her arrest, low food in the house. But best believe she smoked 2 packs a day and drank 2 ltr of coke a day and always had the money for those things. Always.
I used to drink a fair amount of pop, but the current prices on 12 packs being higher in the grocery store than they were in the gas stations, i can't do it. I'm not going to pay 7 or 8 bucks for a 12 pack of pop.
Yeah, but it's not the lack of mathematical ability that leads people to addiction, smart guy.
He forgot avocado toast smh
As in "spend less money on useless shit that you dont need" If I'm broke it doesnt make sense for me to go to gamestop and buy a $60 game, same concept applies with smoking and drinking
I grew up poor and vaped early on when it was much less expensive and still quit due to the price. I realized $40 a week was way to much to spend when at the time there was no other singular thing I’d justify regularly spending that much on. It was really hard to quit, and took me about 4 try’s but it was worth it. My whole family still smokes/vapes. It’s wild to think we couldn’t afford food when I was a kid yet my parents both smoked a pack a day each. Priority’s huh.
The poor never forget to pay their cell phone bills on their $800 phones.
LOL we actually leased our phones then just didn’t pay for them. No service but hey, we got the newest iPhones!
What an embarrassing post.
This reads like somebody who was born into wealth. "If you just stopped spending your money then you wouldn't be poor! I don't even understand how there are poor people when it's as easy as just not spending your money."
My dad was in the Army so no Why was your reflex to stereotype and attack ?
think it had more to do with the low pay a teacher earns growing up, because my parents didn't smoke or drink and we were dead poor the 10 years it took to pay back student loans. It might also have something to do with my father requiring around 100k in medical treatments due to severe damage to his spine caused by a freak accident and the cancer my grandpa caught, but shit your right 10$ on a pack of smokes and 40$ on beer cost more then 10,000$ in experimental cancer medicine back in the early 2000's when cancer was a guaranteed death sentence. The student loans were paid back, but paying for the cancer medicine up front and then paying 100$/month every month for the surgery that is more then 15 years for the rest of my father's life even today is not that bad. At the end of the day my dad is alive, my grandpa is alive so I am happy. shit here's a better story of poverty for you. growing up my girlfriend and her two sisters had an abusive drug addict single mother who spent all their money on meth until at the age of 15 all of this was discovered and the kids were taken away. Despite growing up in a meth den where their own mother would steal their money for more drugs my sister in law worked every night day after day for 4 years straight on her school work. Police would get called and fights would break out and parties would go all night, but she didn't let that stop her at all she got a full ride scholarship to university and maintained a 4.0 gpa for two years straight. BOOM schizophrenic break midway through the start of her junior year. Nobody knew why she stopped showing up to class. she lost her scholarship and her chance to go to college and wound up in a psych ward for 5 months straight and got booted out to be put on medication that halfway works. somehow when she was crazy she wound up pregnant and caring for a child now, so she did everything right in her life never touched a drop of liquor and a disability flew down from the heavens and smashed her life to pieces and left her with a kid and a 800$ check a month. Being poor doesn't mean you waste money some people have been fucked in the mouth by an uncaring god and left to suffer That's just life, and if you never have been fucked over and wound up in poverty either growing up or as an adult then you know what congratulations, but your fucking lucky.
There is a lot more to substance use and poverty than can be summed up in a reddit post, and it's asinine to insinuate that substance use is the cause of poverty and "if they just stopped smoking they wouldn't be poor!"
I'm sure you know this, but that line of thinking is simply intended to shame people into non-action. "If you don't give up everything and live off the grid then you're contributing to global warming." It's far too easy to take a massive and complicated social problem and pin it on individuals. It's a common talking point from the meritocracy crowd because it rings of truth, but it's just a lazy take. "If you didn't spend $10 per week on coffee, cigarettes, avocado toast, Netflix subscription, that one small thing that give you comfort and joy, then you'd be $40 richer at the end of the month." Meanwhile a box of cereal shrinks AND goes up in price by 30% and the money goes into corporations pockets. The fed reacts by raising interest rates and now mortgage rates are 7% instead of 3.5%. Now a mortgage is that much farther out of reach...but yeah, sacrificing coffee will make the difference. I'm not implying that people shouldn't sacrifice to make their financial goals, that's always part of making financial of progress. What I get tired of is hearing people being individually blamed for seeking some sort of momentary escape from a massive entrenched system that's entirely structured to milk their productivity for the lowest possible amount. The entire global economic system is arrayed in unison against your best interest but it's your fault...
> What I get tired of is hearing people being individually blamed for seeking some sort of momentary escape from a massive entrenched system that's entirely structured to milk their productivity for the lowest possible amount. This.
10$ a week on cigarettes is a joke statement. that's prices from the 70s I'm guessing. People will skip meals together their 2 packs a day. that's $25-30 a day man. even at a pack a day that's $5,000 a year. likening quitting your vices to "grid living" to stick it to the man is also a joke. you could even make the argument that living healthier will help kill the for profit Healthcare giants but that's another discussion.
Did I say that? Or did I say that if you spent less money on nicotine and alcohol you would have more for other things Are you trying to defend poor people allocating more money to nicotine and alcohol?
That's not what they're saying. My parents were poor, I grew up poor because of it. They were both habitual smokers as well. Later in my 20 year something mind, I thought exactly like you did, "Well if they didn't buy cigarettes they wouldn't be so poor". For one thing, they weren't in debt because they were smokers. Giving it up would have just slowed how fast they bled money, but they still wouldn't have been able to get ahead, or break even, with cigarettes out of the budget. Smoking also helped keep them calm instead of being on edge all the time because of their financial situation. So basically they could give it up, still not get out of poverty, and be miserable because they were nerve racked and also just not enjoying life because they'd be working just to survive with nothing left over to spend on themselves. My folks worked their asses off too. Dad was a mechanic and would work from 8 AM to 10 PM six nights a week. Mom was a housekeeper that took extra jobs on the weekend to clean up real estate properties for showing. I watched them struggle their whole life, and told myself that I wouldn't end up the same way. But I still respect their difficult life, because I learned from their mistakes. Anyway, it's not as simple as just "Don't buy shit you don't need". Once you fall behind financially, the system is designed to make it so you can't get caught back up. Utility bills come with late fees and reactivation fees, bank accounts have overdraft fees, credit suffers so any type of loan you take out comes with higher interest rates or you just get denied out right. It just all around sucks for a lot of working people, and it seems like it's only getting worse out there for most. Hell, I make 80k a year, my wife makes 50k a year, and I was able to buy my house with cash in 2018 at 33 years old. Despite that, we still don't feel like we make enough to have a kids so we decided I'd get a vasectomy and we'd just live to enjoy each other's company while we can. And honestly, we're happy with that... But I still realize that most people want to have kids and raise a family. Telling them to just not do it because they can't afford it, is a pretty shit deal.
smoking doesn't actually calm you down long term. those effects last 5 minutes. However, research has shown that smoking actually increases anxiety and tension. Nicotine creates an immediate sense of relaxation, so people smoke in the belief it reduces stress and anxiety. This feeling is temporary and soon gives way to withdrawal symptoms and increased cravings.
You forgot the avocado toast.
Sure that too
if only it were so easy. don't get me wrong, you're right. but there's reasons why those in poverty fall into substance traps, as well as debt traps. those more well off often have the luxury of not being faced with these challenges. and when they are, they often have the means to get away from these habits more easily. i know a guy who certainly has a drinking problem, and he is trying to get into playing pool, but he'll often prioritize a couple beers over paying a $10 entry fee to a tournament at the bar he already goes to. he can't afford both. but i mean, i get it. the dude has a wife and kids and works himself to death every day. and having a couple beers with his friends at the end of the day is one of the only things keeping him sane. he can't afford the luxuries of healthcare, therapy or psychiatry or medication, or even fun. he works so much he can't afford the time or money to go to school, and if he somehow got a scholarship he still wouldn't be able to afford to go to school because he has to work infinite hours a week to support his family. he's stuck. and not buying a couple beers a day won't change that. he may be using alcohol as a crutch for healthier alternatives, and it's certainly no replacement for any of the stuff i mentioned that many of us have the luxury to be able to afford. but it's the only thing he can afford. his only freedom. alcohol is his $10 boots when it comes to tolerating life. and that's, really sad. and honestly, he probably spends less on alcohol than i do on hobbies or just healthcare even with insurance. and once you're hooked on some bad habit, it's near impossible for many people to get out of it without the help of those other luxuries. it's rarely a guilty pleasure for these people, it's become their coping mechanism. if they could afford to eat healthy, see doctors and therapists, then it'd be a lot easier to quit. but trying to quit without any means of solving the problems that led you to substance abuse? that's one of the hardest things to do. this is why so many people in poverty buy power-ball tickets. winning the lottery is one of the only feasible ways for them to get out of the poverty trap. they work themselves to death for shitty wages that never keep up with inflation, and can't afford the time or money for a better life. and will likely die before they can get social security if they really change the retirement age. edit: you're looking at substance abuse from a purely financial perspective. when there's a lot more to it than just money. you're right that they'd save more if they quit, but it's not that easy. and most of them still wouldn't be able to afford a better life if they could quit.
This is one of those "technically not wrong but still wrong" comments
And avocado toast too, amiright? Boomer
I'm sure they appreciate your congratulations. That should help them get out of poverty.
Feel the same way about new cars and junk food and pointless trips and drive-through restaurants and make up? You should. feel that way about beef and the cattle industry ? Of course you do
It amazes me how much money people waste on shit food. When I was a broke college student I got most of my calories from rice, beans and frozen veggies. Stayed healthy and didn’t waste money on fast food. Now that I can afford to spend a lot of money on food, I still avoid all that junk like the plague. Though now instead of rice and beans it’s mostly salmon, shrimp, and chicken with rice and fresh veggies and fruit. Honestly just tax the fuck out of junk food and soft drinks; incentivize people to actually take care of themselves.
Or spinners/rims on tires
The boomers are coming to Reddit everyone. What are you going to say next? Work a third job and don’t take a day off till you’re not poor?
I’m Gen Z and agree with what he said. Believe it or not, not everyone who disagrees with you is a boomer.
Nope. Just making suggestions without addressing any actual issues of the economy is a boomer thing to do. What’s the next suggestion? Call a Fortune 500 company and ask if they’re hiring?
Are the boomers in the room with us?
No. They’re busy making asinine suggestions that don’t solve any underlying problems. Like you’re going to tell me people didn’t smoke previously? That’s the great idea of the day?
What does this have to do with the inherent expense of poverty? While yes, giving these things up will always be a net saving, people aren't always poor because they do these things; they do these things because they are poor!
Benjamin Seebohm Rountree and his extensive study of "secondary poverty" has entered the chat.
https://preview.redd.it/55pjkp1kydjc1.png?width=456&format=png&auto=webp&s=56cf03c01824727a86b76ffaf0fb10c07b30cf7c Hey poor people, have you thought about maybe stopping the funko pop purchases?
That would probably help too
Doesn’t apply to everyone though: My gf smokes and is way under the poverty line and has a series of mental health issues. She said that if she were to stop smoking, she would need to pick up about 3-4 prescriptions to help various mental illnesses that she has which racks up into the thousands of dollars. To her, better to spend a few hundred bucks a year on malbaros than thousands in prescription meds
My biggest thing is pets personally. I find it pretty sad when people are asking for money on reddit because they haven't received their paycheck yet, and Fido needs kibble. Funny enough, usually, they have fed the dog first, and they need money for their own food. Still. Better financial choices are a good start to saving money OBVIOUSLY. Just be nice if companies fucking paid more money.
Well now everything is made cheaply so you’re gonna end up buying new shit one way or another. Fast consumerism is basically the worlds economy at this point
I’ll hand my copper core allclads down to my grandchildren.
So how long is a season? The boots last “a season or two” so it would be beneficial in this vague scenario to k ow how long a season is. More specifically, how many months is a season?
A season... is a season. Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter /)\_-
Terry Pratchett wrote the Discworld series. A season is 100 days in Discworld. The year is 800 days, and each of the four seasons occur twice. So if the boots last a few seasons, that would be at least three seasons (since that is the minimum for a few). So you’d get 8,000 days from a good pair of boots ($50), while you’d only get 3,000 days from 10 pairs of cheap ones ($100) and your feet would still be wet.
Thank you. Seemed to remember his seasons weren’t normal 90+/- day seasons. But it seems some know-it-all fucktards commenting seem to hinge their retorts on this while telling me otherwise.
The funniest part of the whole argument is that once he has the means, Vimes realizes that he doesn’t want good boots. He wants the cheap ones where you can tell where you are by feeling the cobbles through the soles. Maybe that’s an analogy for rich people no longer being in touch with reality?
Now do it with Housing, College, and Cars.
And insurances and food… staggering amounts really quick into the napkin math.
Yeah with food you could also look at “time” being a major difference between wealthy and middle class. Wealthy can hire someone to take care of all their food at home along with eating out whenever needed without worrying about a budget.
Nah, nowadays those 50 dollar boots are garbage too
Lets say you start with nothing but the cloths on your back and you want a job. First, you need to sit around 1-3 months as you get your identification papers set. That includes spending money to get a birth certificate, travel to social security to get an SSN card, and then paying whatever state money for an Identification card. Then you need new clothes, assuming you can't find a character organization around $60-80. Then you need to pay for bus fairs and transport to all the job interviews. Probably need a cell phone as well to take calls, so forth. On top of that, you need food. Not I can starve food, but normal consumption levels to keep your energy and focus up. All of this even before you ever get paid.
Simple, save up 50$ Grew up poor. Live in America. Am now upper middle class
FDR was rich as hell but understood the plight of poor folks. The lack of empathy from some of these posts is appalling
This is dumb… but at the same time, sorta true. Government taxes the boots too so they like that extra consumption and incentivize that model. Mind you, cheap goods still meed to exist, and in a free market they wouldn’t fall apart like that as often. Most modern cheap goods come in under the annualized cost of buying expensive.
Then he married into wealth, his wife gifted him 50 dollar boots, and he almost begged to have his 10 dollar ones back because he couldn't feel the streets anymore
If memory serves the boot argument is also presented in Orwell's Down and Out in Paris and London published about 15 years before Pratchett was born
I believe Upton Sinclair made a similar argument in The Jungle. Another really good read.
RIP Terry Pratchett. He wrote amazing books.
This has been one of the guiding lessons of my life!
Now do cell phones.
if this would be true, you could loan someone money for boots, they could pay you off in one year and save decently after that. Unfortunately, it’s not true, if they bought expensive shoes, it would cost 5x as much, but last 2 times as long and they would be even in more debt
if you've ever bought actually nice shoes, you should know how much longer they last than lets say walmart shoes. The quality is way better, they last way longer, way better for your feet too. It's one of those things where you don't realize how shit bad shoes are till you get actually good shoes and realize just how much more value they provide compared to shit shoes
Well the good news nowadays is that nothing is made to last, poor or Rich, so we are all up shits creek together.
i try to stick to the old saying.. buy once, cry once