Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The High Cost of Being Poor

By Barbara Ehrenreich, AlterNet. Posted July 21, 2006.


From food prices to auto insurance, when did poverty get so expensive?
Advertisement

There are people, concentrated in the Hamptons and Beverly Hills, who still confuse poverty with the simple life. No cable TV, no altercations with the maid, no summer home maintenance issues -- just the basics like family, sunsets and walks in the park. What they don't know is that it's expensive to be poor.

In fact, you, the reader of middling income, could probably not afford it. A new study from the Brookings Institute documents the "ghetto tax," or higher cost of living in low-income urban neighborhoods. It comes at you from every direction, from food prices to auto insurance. A few examples from this study, by Matt Fellowes, that covered 12 American cities:

  • Poor people are less likely to have bank accounts, which can be expensive for those with low balances, and so they tend to cash their pay checks at check-cashing businesses, which in the cities surveyed, charged $5 to $50 for a $500 check.
  • Nationwide, low-income car buyers, defined as people earning less than $30,000 a year, pay two percentage points more for a car loan than more affluent buyers.
  • Low-income drivers pay more for car insurance. In New York, Baltimore and Hartford, they pay an average $400 more a year to insure the exact same car and driver risk than wealthier drivers.
  • Poorer people pay an average of one percentage point more in mortgage interest.
  • They are more likely to buy their furniture and appliances through pricey rent-to-own businesses. In Wisconsin, the study reports, a $200 rent-to-own TV set can cost $700 with the interest included.
  • They are less likely to have access to large supermarkets and hence to rely on the far more expensive, and lower quality offerings, of small grocery and convenience stores.

I didn't live in any ghettoes when I worked on Nickle and Dimed --a trailer park, yes, but no ghetto -- and on my average wage of $7 an hour, or about $14,400 a year, I wasn't in the market for furniture, a house or a car. But the high cost of poverty was brought home to me within a few days of my entry into the low-wage life, when, slipping into social-worker mode, I chastised a co-worker for living in a motel room when it would be so much cheaper to rent an apartment. Her response: Where would she get the first month's rent and security deposit it takes to pin down an apartment? The lack of that amount of capital -- probably well over $1,000 -- condemned her to paying $40 a night at the Day's Inn.

Then there was the problem of sustenance. I had gone into the project imagining myself preparing vast quantities of cheap, nutritious soups and stews, which I would freeze and heat for dinner each day. But surprise: I didn't have the proverbial pot to pee in, not to mention spices or Tupperware. A scouting trip to K-Mart established that it would take about a $40 capital investment to get my kitchenette up to speed for the low-wage way of life.

The food situation got only more challenging when I, too, found myself living in a motel. Lacking a fridge and microwave, all my food had to come from the nearest convenience store (hardboiled eggs and banana for breakfast) or, for the big meal of the day, Wendy's or KFC. I have no nutritional complaints; after all, there is a veggie, or flecks of one, in Wendy's broccoli and cheese baked potato. The problem was financial. A double cheeseburger and fries is lot more expensive than that hypothetical homemade lentil stew.

There are other tolls along the road well-traveled by the working poor. If your credit is lousy, which it is likely to be, you'll pay a higher deposit for a phone. If you don't have health insurance, you may end taking that feverish child to an emergency room, and please don't think of ER's as socialized medicine for the poor. The average cost of a visit is over $1,000, which is over ten times more than what a clinic pediatrician would charge. Or you neglect that hypertension, diabetes or mystery lump until you end up with a $100,000 problem on your hands.

So let's have a little less talk about how the poor should learn to manage their money, and a little more attention to all the ways that money is being systematically siphoned off. Yes, certain kinds of advice would be helpful: skip the pay-day loans and rent-to-pay furniture, for example. But we need laws in more states to stop predatory practices like $50 charges for check cashing. Also, think what some microcredit could do to move families from motels and shelters to apartments. And did I mention a living wage?

If you're rich, you might want to stay that way. It's a whole lot cheaper than being poor.

Digg!

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of 13 books, most recently "Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream." This piece first appeared on her blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
A modest proposal: let's end this injustice once and for all
Posted by: Bobsays on Jul 21, 2006 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My proposal is simple and effective. At present, poverty as a problem is dealt with by a bewildering array of government entitlement schemes, small, medium and large NGOs, and corporate social responsilbility programmes. All of this is highly fractured, confusing and so filled with niches (this or that programme is only for black women within X area), loopholes, and favouritism, that it doesn't work at addressing the problem.

What is needed is a central warhouse for advocacy, information, resources, etc. Why are these inequalities less in other developed countries? It is because there will be an agency somewhere that will go out there and fight for the rights of consumers (notice the language) that gets changes to how businesses behave. By stigmatising these initiatives with the poor label, barriers go up. It is more useful to instead lump everyone together and instead talk about consumer rights.

This has worked very well in the UK for example when it comes to banking charges and accounts. Discounts for all spread the risk and bring everyone in on the benefits. It makes it a lot harder to take away when the middle class benefit as well.

Right now, the US leads the world in stigmatising poor people. By choosing to address this problem by a fractured patchwork of charity initiatives, poor people are treated as life's losers and thus are a nice target for the powerful. In fact the best thing for the poor is to be invisible and to be able to access universal benefits that give them a leg up in life.

I worked myself out of poverty based on universal benefits. I witnessed, however, in the 90s, the diminution of these benefits and the rise and rise of charities. No wonder no progess is being made. What is even sadder about this is that this is exactly what the left and right are peddling as the solution to developing world poverty. It won't work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE:Bobsays - A modest proposal: Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Poverty is a Weapon Posted by: psychochurch
The Author is exactly correct
Posted by: Joe Ox on Jul 21, 2006 8:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and it presents another aspect to this seemingly unsolvable dilemma. In a way I am glad she went into the project and studied what those of us who have been there know are major obstacles. Just when someone thinks they have a solution an exception will present itself.
To have a truly scientific look at it, one would need to have dozens of people embarq on this project, all agreeing to live on 7/hr. Because everyone will have very strong preconceived notions and different backgrounds, the amalgam of results could be telling.
For example, a recently or even presently poor person who agreed to enter the study would have an entirely different take on it, and different coping strtegies than a middle calss choosing to schuck the conveniences and "rough it" for a little while. After all, we can all go a few days w/out a shower while camping yes? The time frame would need to be at least a year.
I think such an endeavor would shed tremendous light on a serious problem that stays under the radar of detail, that being the working poor who are not on welfare. I had written elsewhere that govt assistence cannot be "deserved". I correct myself, those working poor indeed deserve help.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Author is exactly correct Posted by: Lincoln fan
No argument. A trip to the ghetto to buy jeans at a bargain cured me.
Posted by: Sojourner on Jul 21, 2006 10:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the messages that enlightened African-American leaders have delivered is that, since we live in a capitalist economy, having capital is a necessity of survival.

"The Other America" told us a long time ago that our capitalist economy only works so long as there is an underclass.

Neither of those sage bits of advice prompts anyone (or very many, anyhow) to try to change the system. "Socialism" is the word that none dare speak in the US. It would help to ameliorate structural penalties as described in this article. But it would require a big change.

So long as the preponderant majority of Americans are opposed to change--and so far we have been--equality of opportunity remains an empty slogan. That, despite the fact that our schools teach it as a realized truth in America. Instead, being poor is a crime. Our prisons already are debtors prisons--don't kid yourself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Being poor means you have no money
Posted by: falternet on Jul 21, 2006 11:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we stopped the movement of money, goods, and services for 48 hours, during which we were able to take a complete finacial inventory of everyone, we could take those who have no money, and share with them from the abundance we uncovered and solve the poverty problem instantaneously.

But the problem is with the dynamic, not the static. Question. Is there an amount of money, that if it was handed in a one time payment to every poor person in America, would permanentlysolve the problem? If $500,000.00 was handed to each family below the poverty line, one time, and walk away, including everyone living on the streets etc., would it not solve the poverty crisis once and for all?

Now lets say we take every family with an income between 70 and 100k per year, took away all the money they have, and handed them 500,000.00. What would happen there?

The same situation, starting with nothing and handed the same money, vastly different outcomes. Please dont deny that it would be.

Why though? What is it about those below the poverty line that would make them unable to stretch the 500,000 as far as those in the other catagory? Sure some from each wouldnt make it, but what is it that defines the difference and why? Before we discuss how 500K is or isnt enough, assume your own amount that you feel is enough.

This highlights a problem that confounds the whole solution to poverty. If a handout of a huge sum of money would sustain some and not others, and if a pattern emerged as to who is and isnt sustained, therein is a comparison and data even hypothetical from which conclusions can and should be drawn as to why handouts as they are currently and historically structured do little to nothing to lift one segment to another level. It gets to the root of responsibility for ones own actions, likley an unpopular notion.

There exists data on this already in a strange way, that being through the tracking of lottery winners. The less money and net worth a winner has at the time they win, the more liklely to be broke within 5-10 years regardless how much money they win. Why? And how can this be used to fight poverty? I'm not blaming anyone or trying to insult any of those unfortunate enough to be invloved, just trying to ask what can be done.

Obviously some eduction would be helpful, to the point where perhaps it should be mandatory for those receiving assistence and who are able bodied and mentally able. Yes of course with childcare and transportation and any other barriers overcome. But throwing money year on year into the black hole of poverty is not working.

Solve this and these prices and expenses will not be a problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Huh? Posted by: falternet
» RE: Huh? Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Garbage Posted by: sofla100
» RE: Garbage Posted by: dangerouslysane
» Think beyond your nose. Posted by: Leman
» RE: Think beyond your nose. Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Being poor means you have no money Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: Being poor means you have no money Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» Anecdotes Posted by: falternet
» 70k? wtf is that? Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: 70k? wtf is that? Posted by: Leman
The working poor are a source of wealth for parasites
Posted by: yellow on Jul 21, 2006 9:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a new book out the title of which I forgot but it's reviewed by emeritus economics professor Mike Yates of the June 2006 edition of the Monthly Review Journal to which Ms. Erhenreich has frequently contributed. The name of the piece is Capitalism is Rotten to the Core! He truely makes the case and I recommend the peice to all those interested in this topic.The key focus of the discussion is the Payday loan outlets which number in the tens of thousands nationwide and has become a primary source of income for a growing number of working poor and well as the Buyhere/payhere used auto dealerships where the poor pay more interest and overpay for the quality of product they receive. These industries make billions off the poor, especially when they default and the same car is resold to another poor person for over 50% of the selling price it went for to the original defaulter. These businesses make way more money off the poor than the rich and middle class (which is shrinking). Having poor credit means paying 500% apr on payday loans. It also means that Credit card companies try to encourage small minimum payments on purchases for billing cycles on ""high risk" cards in order to glean as much interest as possible over time. Many of these high risk cards are secured by high initiation fees, annual fees, service fees, and, of course, interest annual rates. All this keeps the poor on a financial treadmill that they can never leave. The rich don't just profit from the poor's low wage work but at the consumption end as well. The vast majority of the poor are workers who work over 40 hours a week and have no savings. They often need to supplement their earnings with private charity. It is often necessary to lie or exaggerate certain problems like depression or some physical ailment in order to qualify for charitable help with a basic need you can't afford like subsidized housing, a free meal, health care at a free clinic, or transportation. Currently there is no general help for the working poor because the system doesn't recognize the problem and the old social safty net has been shredded! Ehrenreich is right on! The problem isn't only the poors' lack of money but the parasitical industries that emerge to exploit their vulnerabilities. It is a sad commentary of US society that instead of recognizing the proliferation of poverty as a problem to solve with the vast resources available in part provided by the labors of the poor, we instead see this as an opportunity for rampant exploitation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Two sides to the story Posted by: Leman
» RE: Two sides to the story Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Two sides to the story Posted by: redjenny
» RE: Two sides to the story Posted by: aussidawg
Time for a Guaranteed Livable Income!
Posted by: Geni on Jul 21, 2006 10:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.livableincome.org

"People have been advocating for a guaranteed
income since 1785 when Thomas Paine proposed it. "
http://pacificcoast.net/~swag/clhirondellespeech06.html

That was also the recommendation of both Martin Luther King Jr. and Canada's Royal Commission on the Status of Women.

Women's Economic Justice Report on Guaranteed Livable
Income
http://pacificcoast.net/~swag/swcproject05.htm

23% of years of life lost for people under 75 can be attributed to income differences. (Stats Canada)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I absolutely agree with this article
Posted by: cowgrrrl on Jul 23, 2006 10:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have long thought this exact thing: It's expensive being poor.

I have experienced the frustrations of food stamps, food banks, temporary homelessness, trying to prepare inexpensive food without electricity, bathing in an icy stream, trying to find a job or a rental without a phone, trying to get "on top" of expenses by buying in bulk or while things are on sale, lack of health insurance, skipping medical and dental care until problems became more expensive, car problems that could have been avoided with routine maintenance or repairs ... and so many other expenses and indignities.

Lest some folks out there think otherwise, most of these things occurred while I was employed at least part- if not full-time.

Fortunately, I was able to make the tremendous financial and emotional leap, at age 27, to enter college full-time. My resulting education -- as well as hard work, dumb luck and my good fortune at being born into a white, middle-class, literate family -- have allowed me to reach a place in life where I rarely have to worry about grocery money and utility bills. (Just don't ask about my student loan balance.)

Thank you, Ms. Ehrenreich, for this article and all your efforts on behalf of women and the working poor.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Random thoughts
Posted by: pzo on Jul 23, 2006 10:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A good piece! I spent six years living in "the hood", primarily A-A, some illegals. I'm white and well educated. I also spent six months six years ago living in a transient motel. I enjoy watching people and finding patterns and links. Here are a few:

1. The poor often make bad decisions, period. Having a TV seems to be a priority, and it better be big and with cable. Expensive Nike's, high alcohol consumption, and drug usage are way too often part of the lifestyle. As someone notes here, they buy cars that both buyer and seller know will be repoed within two months, wasting incredible amounts of money that could go towards necessities.

2. Once upon a time if you had $25 or $100 you could walk into a bank, open an account, and pick out your check pattern. For 25 years now almost all banks have a minimum creditworthiness to become a customer. Once, when I worked for a bank I was refused an account! This is the real reason all those payday loan and pawn shops have popped up like mushrooms after a rain.

3. Rent to owns are a rip, even the customers know that. But ego and desire overwhelm common sense. No RTO store has ever forced a poor customer to sign a contract, it's all voluntary.

4. I have had low income people ask me if they could have a computer free (I was rehabbing them) at the very same moment a cable installer was there to start a $60/mo habit.

5. Boy, how true about no grocery stores or gas stations nearby! Where I used to live has lost the one gas and repair station for miles around. And my insurance dropped $200 a year when I left the hood!

I guess I'm saying that there are some issues which are the poor's fault, and there are some issues that they can't help. Like so much in life, it ain't simple. As The Duke said, "Life's difficult, and being stupid makes it more difficult." Sometimes it is no more than that.

pzo

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Information is power Posted by: Bobsays
» Then you should be Posted by: Joe Ox
» RE: andom thoughts Posted by: oneyedjack
» No need for insults Posted by: Leman
» RE: No need for insults Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: andom thoughts Posted by: pzo
» RE: andom thoughts Posted by: Eithne
» RE: Random thoughts Posted by: yaddablah
» RE: andom thoughts Posted by: Eithne
» RE: andom thoughts Posted by: pzo
» RE: andom thoughts Posted by: redjenny
Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Jul 24, 2006 2:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they manged to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, where they were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the carboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kinds of boot Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness.
--Terry Pratchett, Men At Arms, pg 35

And consider how the megastores like WalMart exploit poverty to keep people living in poverty: they pay dirt poor wages to sweatshop laborers to turn out cheap junk that the North American poor have to buy because they can't afford better, and that, in turn, fuels the economy of poverty in sweatshop promoting countries.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I always buy quality Posted by: Bobsays
» too much capital up front Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: I always buy quality Posted by: aislinnluv
» RE: I always buy quality Posted by: zoomorph
» RE: I always buy quality Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: I always buy quality Posted by: zoomorph
This is why we need a sound monetary system.
Posted by: BJT on Jul 24, 2006 4:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would put myself in the category of working poor (less than $20k/yr) and so I can relate to this.

Going to check-cashing places is just a bad idea. You could probably pay less in potential overdraft fees if you just had a checking account. There are plenty of fine used cars out there for $3-5k. Finance charges on a car are just another huge liability, so don't buy beyond your means. Nobody needs to rent-to-own a TV. If you need a TV that bad, get one for $30 at a pawn shop. Honestly. Otherwise, do without. Televisions are electronic income reducers anyway. A huge factor is that the working poor and "middle" class often haven't learned how to manage money. Who can blame them? Nobody taught them and the way our economy is designed puts intelligent money management against the grain.

Now, to the stuff that's really a problem. CAR INSURANCE. Government owns a huge portion of available stock in insurance companies. Might that have something to do about why it is "legally required" you take on the liability of auto insurance premiums? This is a bad law and it siphons money off of the poor. The biggest problem of all is our infaltionary monetary system. How do I know? Because GETTING OUT OF US DOLLARS was how I made sure my savings prospered until I could have enough money in one place to invest beyond what I would get in one paycheck. I went to bulliondirect.com and bought silver like it was my savings. I put money in, the price of silver went up, and my savings' value increased. I put more and more in, a little at a time, until at last I was able to invest in non-confiscatable numismatic gold, which will appreciate even faster. This huge sum I had to save up to? $1,000.

Because Dollars are perpetually depreciating, it forces the economy into a system of debt. Instead of simply saving money until we can purchase item X, we lease, mortgage or otherwise finance it because there's no way to save enough money to buy it before the price goes up. Even saving your money in the stock market or savings account will lose you money, because inflation is sure as hell higher than 4.5%.

Inflation is the insidious hidden tax that hits the poor, who have no investments to hedge against it, the HARDEST. Inflation is not a "natural" part of the economy. Money does not "naturally" come from governments or central bank printing presses. In its natural form, money is a common commodity with universal intrinsic value. Gold and silver have been history's best money. The supply of it only increases (inflates) when actual effort is put into the economy by mining it. This bastardized version of money printed out by fiat by the Federal Reserve is just debt notes. Would you accept someone's phone bill as payment? You're effectively doing the same thing when you accept a government debt receipt as payment.

The Federal Reserve's play money is robbing Americans--espeically the poorest ones--for the sole profit of the central bankers.

If you doubt the horrifying effects of inflationary money, check out libertydollar.org or read some articles at kitco.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Derf
Posted by: derfb1 on Jul 24, 2006 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been poor. I was born on a share cropper farm. I got a job at a co-op for 45 cents an hour. I decided I didn't want to do that. I enlisted during a war. I got out and went to school on the GI Bill and then I worked a full time job until I was 74 years old. You just have to be smart enough to figure a way out and have the will. If you let the "system" roll over you and don't take the dole--you will be OK. If you cave in and take that first FOOD STAMP -- you are doomed.

I picked up bones in a large hog lot. The bones were ground into rose fertilizer ingrediants. I got 2 dollars a ton. I forked lots of bones into a dump truck. Just do it and stop whining.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mr. Derf Posted by: deo508
» RE: Mr. Derf Posted by: SekhmetsatRa
» RE: Mr. Derf Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: Mr. Derf Posted by: scryberwitch
» RE: Mr. Derf Posted by: scryberwitch
» RE: Mr. Derf Posted by: ArtemInox
men work for money, women work for free
Posted by: beausoleil on Jul 24, 2006 4:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've heard so many men give the same type of story. What about all the caregivers out here? The single moms who have to leave jobs or neglect their businesses to take care of the children and grown men who are sick or injured? The million errands that I've had to deal with simply to put my children in school, the bureaucracy that keeps me running in circles for a million different reasons that only bureaucrats can fathom...When it comes to the very necessary but unpaid work that needs to be done, women do it, yet there is no compensation from society for this contribution. Is there a solution? NO, because there will always be a man out there like the previous poster who says, "I did it, so you should too, so stop whining". Well, sir, I hope you never need someone to take care of you, because if you get what you deserve for that last comment, you'll find yourself either alone, or having to spend your every last penny to pay someone to change your diapers in a few years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Then charge for it! Posted by: Burton
pivo
Posted by: pivo on Jul 24, 2006 6:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife and I were driving through a poor section of town a few days ago. She noticed that gas there averaged about $0.25 more per gallon than other parts of town. I can't imagine any legitimate reason for this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Legitimate reasons Posted by: poelmanc
» RE: Legitimate reasons Posted by: Eithne
» RE: Legitimate reasons Posted by: pzo
» RE: pivo Posted by: coldeye
I had an epiphany...
Posted by: caitlin on Jul 24, 2006 7:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
once while driving around with my husband in the low-income areas of Boston trying to find a place to do our grocery shopping while we waited on a friend. We eventually found one, one of those discount Food Master type places, and it was the sorriest damn sight in the world. The meat selection was pitiful, everything was old looking, bargain basement with brand names I'd never even heard of, and forget about actually finding produce that was edible. I mean, I'm not one of those snobbish foodies - I do not shy away from generic food products and I don't die if I have to eat non-organic produce - but even I could see that not even Jamie Oliver on his best day could make enough nutritious, healthy food for an entire family. We ended up leaving without buying anything, but during the fifteen minutes we were there, my heart broke about a half dozen times for all of the people who had no choice but to get their food from such a place.

Later I realized that most large grocery chains don't bother to build near low-income neighborhoods, period. Considering that the poor tend to suffer from higher rates of obesity, heart disease, high blood pressure and lots of other completely preventable health concerns, I find this absolutely repulsive and immoral. Not to mention it's just bad business sense, as food is hardly a luxury item - unless you are one of those Trader Joe's/Whole Foods types - and almost everyone needs it. It's not like they'll be starving for business. It's just that good old unspoken classism and racism that masquerades as 'free market principles' rearing its ugly, tired head again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The solution is this Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: The solution is this Posted by: Leman
» RE: I had an epiphany... Posted by: poelmanc
» This is so Posted by: Burton
ORGANIZE
Posted by: clonechemist on Jul 24, 2006 7:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE. The oppressed underclass will never be free until we, the middle- and upper-classes, demand it. Our own daily consumption is the foundation of this system. Join a union, start a boycott/walkout, ride a bike, protest, harass your jackass of a representative at the federal, state, and local levels. For goodness' sake, make it known LOUD AND CLEAR to the corporate and political elite that you personally will not cooperate in this travesty. Just ORGANIZE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ORGANIZE Posted by: aussidawg
A Special Advantage
Posted by: picket on Jul 24, 2006 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Corporate politicians don't mind giving the super rich a few extras. I read recently that the IRS has stopped auditing the tax returns of the wealthiest Americans, specifically those subject to gift and estate taxes, when transferred parts of their fortune to their children or others. BUT..........they are now going to concentrate on those Americans making more than one million dollars a year.

Millionaires are the "new poor"... for them there will be fines and confiscation of property, because those CONSERVATIVE [ha ha] Repubs have given the farm away.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Special Advantage Posted by: Leman
» RE: A Special Advantage Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: A Special Advantage Posted by: Leman
» RE: A Special Advantage Posted by: aussidawg
Nickel and Dimed in the 2002 economy...
Posted by: charlesjillian on Jul 24, 2006 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
isn't the same as being nickel and dimed in today's economy. I am poor. I'm also on food assistance, as are most of my friends and family. Where I live, in Eastern Kentucky, there is only one place in town to make more than $6 an hour, and that's the tire factory (not counting the university).

Gas is $3 a gallon. It's not unreasonable to assume that one could spend say $6 a day going to and from work. That's one hour. Now car insurance might cost you say $3 a day, that's a half hour.

Rent here is cheap, only about $400 a month for a shithole, so in a day that's about 2 hours of your time. Quite often your boss is also your landlord, which is to the fortune of your landlord not the renter.

A gallon of milk is $3. Fresh vegetables are very hard to come by and very expensive, unless you have food stamps. You can see where this is going, my hours are almost used up, my $48 before taxes almost gone.

Want health insurance? Give me a break, I haven't had it in my entire adult life. There is just no way I could get health insurance on the wages available here.

But the kisser is really the food prices. I know it's not been in the news or on the beloved almighty television or even the always balanced NPR, but here I would say that food prices have almost DOUBLED in the last two years or so. Gas and food are the only inflation that matters to the working class.

Nickel and Dimed is an out-of-date experiment Ms. E., and living in a trailer really isn't so bad. You lack the perspective required to truly turn things around for the poor. You engaged in a bourgeois experiment, which you openly acknowledge. Yet you don't advocate socialism, the working class liberating itself.

We create the wealth that every member of the upper and middle class live on, you included. Good-hearted liberals like yourself simply cannot make capitalism rein itself in, we have to do it. Reformism is a dead end, and has always, always prevented the working class from getting want it deserves.

Once capitalism is overcome in this country it will become overcome in the entire world. This is what we (you) need to be working toward, internationalism, socialism, cooperation impossible under this system. Not moralising, appealing to the inherent good nature of politicians and the powerful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Gas Is Cheap, People are WEAK Posted by: charlesjillian
Please make up your mind
Posted by: satanist on Jul 24, 2006 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You say "So let's have a little less talk about how the poor should learn to manage their money, and a little more attention to all the ways that money is being systematically siphoned off." right after listing some of the idiotic things "poor" people do that demonstrate their inability to manage money.

Who's forcing these people to avoid getting an account and cashing checks at a bank? Who's putting a gun to their heads to get them to rent a motel room rather than find shared housing and save up for a down payment? Who's making them sign rent-to-own contracts rather than shop at thrift stores? NOBODY. These are clear-cut cases, using you own examples, of poor money mangement. Please try to remember that "poor people" don't start out as "poor people" in this country. Even with as little as a public school education, anybody can easily make it to a middle-class lifestyle. Anyone who thinks differently needs to wake up to the actual facts; this country is still a fountain of opportunity to anyone who chooses to be successful. It makes me sick when people spout this kind of self-contradicting nonsense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Please make up your mind Posted by: yaddablah
» RE: Please make up your mind Posted by: scryberwitch
» RE: Please make up your mind Posted by: aussidawg
Payday loans
Posted by: ciccio on Jul 24, 2006 1:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in Canada, there has recently been a proliferation of payday loan shops.I checked the differences between US and
Canada, they are substantial. The first thing the Canadian cunsumer affairs page on payday loans tells you it is the most expensive forms of credit you can get, it gives examples of the diffence between payday, credit card and overdraft costs. The second is that the fees, both for interest and initial fees
are strictly controlled. That is one of the difference when a
parliament writes the law vs. a corporation writing them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How to get out of poverty
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jul 24, 2006 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Do whatever you can to get access to a high-quality education, even though other poor people will tell you that if you want to go to college, you must think that you are better then everyone else (really!). Maybe you need a new social circle?

2) If you must have a credit card, only use it for the most dire emergencies, as when you car breaks down 500 miles from home. Pay it off immediately. Better yet, never get one.

3) Understand that the 'professional world' is more cutthroat then your crime-ridden alleyway. People who flatter you are generally looking to rip you off and aren't to be trusted. If someone tells you you can invest your hard-earned money with them and double it in a year, understand that you are about to be robbed.

4) Save every cent you can, and get out of the consumer mentality. Learn to cook - you can go far on rice and beans - and save your money for important things that you can then use to make more money (like an education).

5) Most importantly, cancel your cable service and throw out your television. Use your time to improve your chances in life - help your friends out, take some night classes - anything is better then slackjaw TV watching.

6) Form a union at your job.

Finally, let's consider what inherited wealth and persistent poverty have in common - people in both groups typically hate hard work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How to get out of poverty Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: How to get out of poverty Posted by: thoughtcriminal
» RE: How to get out of poverty Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: How to get out of poverty Posted by: aussidawg
Dont Forget Gentrification
Posted by: johnrevel on Jul 24, 2006 3:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Up rooting every few years, harassment and random ticketing by the police and adhering to new pricing structures at local restaurants and shops is quite pricy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's a shame ...
Posted by: saffron_mom on Jul 24, 2006 3:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that so many people posting here, who claim to "understand" being poor, have no clue.

It's even more of a shame that they all have remedies - just sock away $50 a month, open a checking account, save up for a down payment, yada yada yada.

I am 50 years old, the divorced mother of two teens, and I work three jobs to make a whopping $16,000 a year. No health insurance, of course, medical bills out the eyeballs, lousy credit because of it. After paying all my bills every month, I have a grand total of $100 left, which I would certainly bank as long as there are no trips to the doctor, the dentist (one day I'll actually be able to afford having that abcessed wisdom tooth removed), no need for eyeglasses for the kid who can't see the blackboard, no car repairs (this month it was $428 - so of course I didn't pay the electric bill or the car insurance or the heat bill to make sure I had a car to get to work). We live in a rural area, where it's 10 miles to the only grocery store around (not a discount one, mind you). I am finishing my master's thesis, which should be cause for celebration, but after I graduate that will mean another $200 per month in student loan bills. My oldest teen is in college, the youngest a senior in high school, and the monies they need are just not there. There is no public transportation here so I don't have a choice but to have the car and the insurance and repair bills that go with it - never mnd that the only car I could afford eats gas and is always on the brink of not running. I rent, of course, since no one will give someone in my income bracket a mortgage. The price of the oil to heat our home doubles in the past year, meaning I keep the house at a lovely and balmy 60 degree s all winter, and still run out of fuel at least three times a winter. If I were to try and "save for a down payment" on a decent place it would take me ... oh, let's see: first and last month's rent and security deposit on a place that costs $500 would be $1500, and it would take 15 months of no extraneous expenses to get it. That would also mean no birthday presents, no new clothes, no school supplies, etc. And no health insurance means that the surgery I am scheduled for tomorrow, for possible breast cancer, will take me about 20 years to pay off.

So take your pomposity and temper it with a little bit of common sense, please. I'm tired of all the "we know what's best for the poor, they just aren't trying" routine.

[