Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by yesboii, May 21, 2009.
Sure they can. It's called debt.
I think education could matter. A large part of the system is not slated against the poor, but against those who make bad decisions. The system then works in such a way to make those people poor. They'd still have a crappy job, and a lousy pay, but the money they get they just might spend a bit wiser. Also, increasing levels of support would require you to find the people you're targetting, or them finding you. For the last, some education would be very helpful.
You can't squeeze blood out of a rock, as the saying goes... banks and "investors" are now finding out that they can't squeeze more money out of people without money. And they mistake is now even threatening the otherwise stable squeezing model they already had - the one where people were sneezed of the money they did had, and kept working for more.
They can always reset it to zero.
Wasn't there a movie about that?
I don't know, have anything in particular in mind?
I can think of it but I'm not allowed to talk about it.
A person with no money can also continue to lose mental capital or fitness capital.
Lastly, the might lose the ability to capitalise
I don't accept the "have to go to the corner store" thing. Poor people simply have to walk to the farther stores. I do it now, since I don't have a car, and I used to do it in Manhattan. I say "tough cookies" if you're incapable of walking to a better store. And that thing about taking a bus for three hours is true if you're living in the countryside.
The point of the article goes beyond the specific example used, although in all cases (not just that one) there are ways to reduce the impact if you know what they are.
What if someone is working two jobs and can't afford the extra walk? Or even the time to set aside for a normal "grocery trip" where one can grab all they need in one go? In this case, the corner store becomes the only way to get certain necessities.
Then that person will have to make the best of a bad situation. You can create an infinite number of anecdotes of poor people with bad situations, but I'm still extremely unimpressed. They can go to the grocery once a week, once every two weeks, whatever. Basically, I think this grocery store example is an incredibly bad example for saying how the poor pay more.
Just for giggles: some CEOs work 100 hours or more per week. Should they just go to the corner store because they don't have time for groceries?
Also just for giggles: For a short while, I had to work 100 hour weeks as a programmer. I wasn't "forced" to go to particular nearby stores.
EDIT: By the way, you and anyone else can come up with some anecdote for how a particular hypothetical poor person has some bad situation. The people in bad situations will have to figure out how to deal with it. It's simply an ordinary part of being alive in an industrialized society.
Just curious, does that argument mean that there should be no attempt to distribute wealth?
Distribute wealth in what manner? I hope you're not trying to make an absolutist-style argument.
I'm not arguing anything. You are. The whole "poor people must deal with life's difficulties" tripe is a typically conservative argument in opposing wealth redistribution.
You know, most people who below the poverty line own a car. That argument is hardly relevent.
Statements like this wouldn't seem to be very intelligent on second thoughts if the person who said it has any sense.
Actually its true. About 73% of said households own at least 1 car. It might be a <not high quality> car, but its a car none the less. Less than 10% of American households don't own a car. Even if all those people fall into the lowest 1/5 of the population, half of them still own cars. Now given that not all of them fall into the largest quantile(there are a decent amount of better-off folks or older couples who live in large cities with good public transportation that don't own a car), the number if going to be greater than 50%
Are they "below the poverty line"?
If that is true, then it just shows how skewed economic life is in the USA, that there is a big difference between the poor there and the poor in a less developed country. That would in turn allude to just how much the USA is exploiting poorer countries in order to sustain its standards of living.
Separate names with a comma.