The Spoiled Poor

[Jason76]

Obviously, it's better to teach a person to fish, than give him a fish - as noted! However, the vast swathes of poor in the third world are already fishing - yet nothing of it! So what I was getting at is that this model shows the poor in the US, UK etc. are the same.

Anyway, it's more than fishing. A person has to reach a market (if he/she's selling things) and/or that person has to find a job. Both of these things are often way harder than it seems - but the cultural right wants to paint the poor as effeminate and/or lazy.

Now, continuing - the solution is to better integrate marginalized groups. In that case, reaching markets, finding jobs is much easier.

"Poor people" as a group are as varied as any other group, as the article says. There's lots of talk about "addressing economic inequality" but there comes a point at which we need to ask whether it should be addressed at all. To give you an example, a guy I know is in his 40s, divorced with two kids. One of his standard go-to lines is "I can't afford it" and yet there's always beer in his fridge and there's always whiskey in his drinks cabinet. He drinks both in copious quantities, it's not as if he buys a cheap bottle of bourbon and nurses it for a year. He shows precisely zero inclination to improve his situation - he'll complain he doesn't know how to do something but won't take the time to read about it, or find YouTube videos about it because he'd rather spend time watching videos of cats falling off shelves or something. Why should there be anything other than economic inequality between a guy like this, and the guy who gets up early, works hard, and spends his free time learning new skills?

That's true about learning new skills - but still reaching markets and finding jobs is no walk in the park - for many people. I mean, some guy who can do an oil change is nothing special - even if 50 percent of the population can't.

Now, myself, I got a B in Calculus II (possible math tutoring jobs) - but still it's fierce competition - even though most of the population isn't that good at it.

 

[tango]

There's a lot of talk about "finding a job" and much assumption that the way forward is to work, for someone else. We've gotten used to the idea that what we should be doing is going to the same place every day, clocking in, spending 8 hours there regardless of whether there's much to do or not, and then clocking out and going home. And we expect that Somebody Else to provide for us in all sorts of other ways - paid time off, health insurance (the US healthcare system is a joke in so many ways), and the security of a regular paycheck while assuming that Somebody Else will be out finding the work for us to actually do.

If you can do something, chances are you can do something for somebody. As its most simple, f you can walk you can mow someone's yard while they are at work (or if they are too infirm to do it, or if they just can't be bothered to do it themselves). The trouble with many welfare systems (I can't say much about the US system but the UK system really doesn't make it easy for people trying to at least do something to better themselves) is that when the money you make is deducted from the welfare you receive there's really not much point starting unless you can expect to replace all of your welfare and more, fairly quickly.

Whatever system of taxation, welfare deductions, healthcare credits, whatever, is in place it is absurd to have any situations, at any level of income, where earning more money results in anything other than having more money to call your own. And the amount of money you get to keep needs to be sufficient to make it worth actually going out and doing the work. When you get situations where doing more work results in minimal benefit or, worse, doing more work results in becoming worse off, it's easy to see why people either don't bother working or figure out how to game or exploit the system.

When I first started work in the UK the rule was that our National Insurance contributions (which are loosely like the Social Security taxes in the US) only applied once your income went over the equivalent of about $100/week. Once you hit that point you paid 10% of your income in NI until you hit the upper limit at which point it no longer applied. So if you earned $99/week you took home $99, but if you earned that extra dollar you hit the National Insurance threshold which took 10% of your income, meaning you only actually took home $90/week. In other words, earning that extra dollar left you $9 worse off.

The "Affordable" Care Act in the US seems to have a similar provision once 400% of the federal poverty level is reached. At 399% you can still get quite generous tax credits but if you are unlucky enough to stray over the magic 400% marker you get nothing. Worse, if you started the year expecting to come in at maybe 380% and accepted tax credits every month but then find you were unlucky enough to earn slightly more than you expected you end up potentially having to repay $12,000 or more in tax credits because you made $2000 in extra income. It's hard to be surprised if someone in that situation does something like inventing a few expenses to push themselves under the threshold, or maybe forgetting to mention some work they did for cash, or whatever else it takes to make sure they don't suddenly get hit with a five-figure bill. Once you get to that point you either have to stop, or accept you're going to be significantly worse off for a while and hope you can jump the gap quickly.

But going back to the issue of finding jobs, if you can do something that many people can't do and you can teach it, you potentially have a market. If you consider established schools to be the extent of your market you're reining yourself in. Or, using my earlier example, you can become "Bill's Lawn Care Services" and mow lawns without having to find an existing company to hire you to mow lawns.

 

[Jason76]

There's a lot of talk about "finding a job" and much assumption that the way forward is to work, for someone else. We've gotten used to the idea that what we should be doing is going to the same place every day, clocking in, spending 8 hours there regardless of whether there's much to do or not, and then clocking out and going home. And we expect that Somebody Else to provide for us in all sorts of other ways - paid time off, health insurance (the US healthcare system is a joke in so many ways), and the security of a regular paycheck while assuming that Somebody Else will be out finding the work for us to actually do.

If you can do something, chances are you can do something for somebody. As its most simple, f you can walk you can mow someone's yard while they are at work (or if they are too infirm to do it, or if they just can't be bothered to do it themselves). The trouble with many welfare systems (I can't say much about the US system but the UK system really doesn't make it easy for people trying to at least do something to better themselves) is that when the money you make is deducted from the welfare you receive there's really not much point starting unless you can expect to replace all of your welfare and more, fairly quickly.

Whatever system of taxation, welfare deductions, healthcare credits, whatever, is in place it is absurd to have any situations, at any level of income, where earning more money results in anything other than having more money to call your own. And the amount of money you get to keep needs to be sufficient to make it worth actually going out and doing the work. When you get situations where doing more work results in minimal benefit or, worse, doing more work results in becoming worse off, it's easy to see why people either don't bother working or figure out how to game or exploit the system.

When I first started work in the UK the rule was that our National Insurance contributions (which are loosely like the Social Security taxes in the US) only applied once your income went over the equivalent of about $100/week. Once you hit that point you paid 10% of your income in NI until you hit the upper limit at which point it no longer applied. So if you earned $99/week you took home $99, but if you earned that extra dollar you hit the National Insurance threshold which took 10% of your income, meaning you only actually took home $90/week. In other words, earning that extra dollar left you $9 worse off.

The "Affordable" Care Act in the US seems to have a similar provision once 400% of the federal poverty level is reached. At 399% you can still get quite generous tax credits but if you are unlucky enough to stray over the magic 400% marker you get nothing. Worse, if you started the year expecting to come in at maybe 380% and accepted tax credits every month but then find you were unlucky enough to earn slightly more than you expected you end up potentially having to repay $12,000 or more in tax credits because you made $2000 in extra income. It's hard to be surprised if someone in that situation does something like inventing a few expenses to push themselves under the threshold, or maybe forgetting to mention some work they did for cash, or whatever else it takes to make sure they don't suddenly get hit with a five-figure bill. Once you get to that point you either have to stop, or accept you're going to be significantly worse off for a while and hope you can jump the gap quickly.

But going back to the issue of finding jobs, if you can do something that many people can't do and you can teach it, you potentially have a market. If you consider established schools to be the extent of your market you're reining yourself in. Or, using my earlier example, you can become "Bill's Lawn Care Services" and mow lawns without having to find an existing company to hire you to mow lawns.

Competition for yard work is more severe than you think. I mean, most of your conservatives would want to give the "Get off your hind-end and mow a lawn, lazy!" - but it's not what it seems.

Also, wages and competition differ by area. For instance, my relative makes a killing - just delivering pizzas - but he lives in this sort of "retirement town" with a lot of middle-class, out-of-state people.

 

[tango]

Competition for yard work is more severe than you think. I mean, most of your conservatives would want to give the "Get off your hind-end and mow a lawn, lazy!" - but it's not what it seems.

Also, wages and competition differ by area. For instance, my relative makes a killing - just delivering pizzas - but he lives in this sort of "retirement town" with a lot of middle-class, out-of-state people.

Of course wages and competition vary by area. Why would you expect anything less - the people lucky enough to have a yard they need or want help mowing in NYC clearly can't expect their lawn care person to work for the same kind of money as it takes to get a gardener in the back end of rural Kentucky. And if competition is particularly fierce you need to find something else you can do, or a differentiating aspect you can offer.

There are a few people in my area who offer rides. Sort of like Uber, but without going through a megacorp that takes a generous cut of your earnings. Give them a call, tell them what you need, and they'll see if they can work with you. They saw a need, they looked to meet the need. If you live in an area with lots of old people you can probably do pretty well in the winter clearing snow. If you live in an area that draws tourists you could offer tours guided by a local, showing people the kind of out-of-the-way places that are part of the character of the area that aren't necessarily the obvious tourist traps. Of course when all is said and done if you have nothing unique to offer anyone why should you expect to make a lot of money doing something that literally anyone else could do? If you could literally walk out into the street, grab the first person that walks past, and find that they could do your job as well as you could, why should anyone pay handsomely for whatever you are doing?

I don't dispute some people need specific help in the right here and right now. At the same time offering too much help with no strings doesn't inspire anyone to get off their hind-end and do anything useful for themselves.

 

[Jason76]

I hardly think that Judith McCormack is on par with God's Word.

Well, as I was saying in another thread. Conservatives haven't seriously confronted critics. In fact, they (the critics) have many true things to say - even what they say isn't totally true.

I mean, the self-righteousness of so many capital C Christians is a bit unnerving! There's no compassion. Just all sorts of judging and even hypocrisy. That's true when - in fact, people need to be shown love - and then there can be lectures on justice.

 

[Lamb]

Well, as I was saying in another thread. Conservatives haven't seriously confronted critics. In fact, they (the critics) have many true things to say - even what they say isn't totally true.

I mean, the self-righteousness of so many capital C Christians is a bit unnerving! There's no compassion. Just all sorts of judging and even hypocrisy. That's true when - in fact, people need to be shown love - and then there can be lectures on justice.

Christians have a lot of compassion and are the first to start collections when people are in need or there is a hurricane, fire, tornado, etc...

 

[tango]

Well, as I was saying in another thread. Conservatives haven't seriously confronted critics. In fact, they (the critics) have many true things to say - even what they say isn't totally true.

I mean, the self-righteousness of so many capital C Christians is a bit unnerving! There's no compassion. Just all sorts of judging and even hypocrisy. That's true when - in fact, people need to be shown love - and then there can be lectures on justice.

Wow. If you looked hard enough you might just find a broader brush than this one.

Much truth is said on both sides, the trouble is when truth is mixed with rhetoric aimed more at demonising the other side than in solving any problems.

The simple reality is that some people are financially very hard up through little more than circumstance. If you're struggling to make ends meet despite trying your level best to work and put something by for the future only to find your car engine blows up, chances are you haven't got enough saved up to drop four figures on a new engine or buy another car. So now you have little option other than to take out a short-term loan (credit card, payday loan etc) and the interest rates start to eat you alive. At the same time some people are hard up financially because they don't even have the financial sense they were born with. The person who is trying to provide for themselves but has been knocked sideways by circumstance would be helped by a low interest loan or outright gift to get them back on their feet; the person who can't afford their heating bill but can afford to keep beer in the fridge isn't going to be helped by some extra cash - you might as well just buy them another case of beer and cut the pretense.

The problem with any system is that the higher the level of government that administers it the more difficult it is to differentiate the deserving from the undeserving. If an approach is a very simple "cut welfare" there are very real problems associated with cutting money to the people who genuinely need it to survive. If an approach is a very simple "throw money" there are very real problems associated with giving money to people who are merely lazy, not to mention the problem with people at the low end of the income spectrum being taxed so someone else can have things they can't afford.

Here's a specific example, based on two cases of people/families I knew even if not particularly well. One was an unemployed single mother with four sons - I'll call her Lucy for the sake of a name. The other was a working married man with two children - I'll call him James. James lived in a two-bedroom apartment with his wife, his son and his daughter. Both his children were small - small enough that they could still share a bedroom. Lucy lived in a three-bedroom house paid for by the taxpayer. James couldn't afford a larger place to live despite both him and his wife working, but of course his children could only share a bedroom for so many years before they would need their own space. Because of property prices he was facing the likelihood of having to leave the area completely and look for work elsewhere, because his salary wasn't enough to buy anywhere with three bedrooms anywhere near his work. And yet, despite being unable to afford a place big enough for his family, he was paying taxes so that Lucy could live in a house that would have met his needs perfectly, but he couldn't afford. What's the answer to this problem? Should Lucy be given more money to make her life easier, even though that would make James' life harder? Should James be paying less so he can afford more of what was given to Lucy at very little cost, even if that means Lucy suffers extra hardship? How do you balance the two?

To be honest your post is little more than lots of vague finger pointing with very little constructive content. "Showing love" doesn't necessarily mean opening up the money fountains - sometimes people are best served with a lesson in how to budget rather than extra money. Sometimes the best way to help people is to let them face the consequences of their actions because if people can be reckless with impunity there is little if any incentive to make good decisions. If someone learns that failing to pay their electricity bill gets them cut off they'll learn not to do it again; if they learn that failing to pay their bill just means someone else will step in and take care of it why would they even attempt to reduce their usage or set any money aside to pay for it?

The sad part is that it is very easy to simply point fingers and offer a curious form of "help" that consists of little more than an observation that "I wouldn't start from here if I were you", when people have little option other than to start where they are. At the same time merely shoveling money in the general direction of people who might be considered "poor" does little to help with less measurable concepts like self-respect, confidence, and the like.

Here's another example for you. A guy I know has a really nasty draft in his house. It's been there for at least two years and maybe more, and he often mentions it. With a $10 tool and $5 worth of material he could have fixed it. He insists he has the tools and knows how to fix it, and yet in two years he hasn't actually fixed it. Even if he couldn't find what he needs he could buy everything from scratch for $15. During the depths of winter that draft probably costs him more than $15/month in extra heating costs so it's not as if it's a project that would take years to pay for itself. It's not even as if he doesn't have the $15, because he managed to find several hundred dollars to add to his already impressive collection of guns. What do you think "showing love" would look like, where this guy is concerned? Paying his heating bill merely enables him not bothering to address his problems. Telling him to get off his rear end and take responsibility for his situation is the kind of thing your post above would probably consider to be judging. And stepping in and just doing the work for him merely teaches the lesson that if you ignore something for long enough someone else will make your problem go away.

 

[Jason76]

Wow. If you looked hard enough you might just find a broader brush than this one.

Much truth is said on both sides, the trouble is when truth is mixed with rhetoric aimed more at demonising the other side than in solving any problems.

The simple reality is that some people are financially very hard up through little more than circumstance. If you're struggling to make ends meet despite trying your level best to work and put something by for the future only to find your car engine blows up, chances are you haven't got enough saved up to drop four figures on a new engine or buy another car. So now you have little option other than to take out a short-term loan (credit card, payday loan etc) and the interest rates start to eat you alive. At the same time some people are hard up financially because they don't even have the financial sense they were born with. The person who is trying to provide for themselves but has been knocked sideways by circumstance would be helped by a low interest loan or outright gift to get them back on their feet; the person who can't afford their heating bill but can afford to keep beer in the fridge isn't going to be helped by some extra cash - you might as well just buy them another case of beer and cut the pretense.

The problem with any system is that the higher the level of government that administers it the more difficult it is to differentiate the deserving from the undeserving. If an approach is a very simple "cut welfare" there are very real problems associated with cutting money to the people who genuinely need it to survive. If an approach is a very simple "throw money" there are very real problems associated with giving money to people who are merely lazy, not to mention the problem with people at the low end of the income spectrum being taxed so someone else can have things they can't afford.

Here's a specific example, based on two cases of people/families I knew even if not particularly well. One was an unemployed single mother with four sons - I'll call her Lucy for the sake of a name. The other was a working married man with two children - I'll call him James. James lived in a two-bedroom apartment with his wife, his son and his daughter. Both his children were small - small enough that they could still share a bedroom. Lucy lived in a three-bedroom house paid for by the taxpayer. James couldn't afford a larger place to live despite both him and his wife working, but of course his children could only share a bedroom for so many years before they would need their own space. Because of property prices he was facing the likelihood of having to leave the area completely and look for work elsewhere, because his salary wasn't enough to buy anywhere with three bedrooms anywhere near his work. And yet, despite being unable to afford a place big enough for his family, he was paying taxes so that Lucy could live in a house that would have met his needs perfectly, but he couldn't afford. What's the answer to this problem? Should Lucy be given more money to make her life easier, even though that would make James' life harder? Should James be paying less so he can afford more of what was given to Lucy at very little cost, even if that means Lucy suffers extra hardship? How do you balance the two?

To be honest your post is little more than lots of vague finger pointing with very little constructive content. "Showing love" doesn't necessarily mean opening up the money fountains - sometimes people are best served with a lesson in how to budget rather than extra money. Sometimes the best way to help people is to let them face the consequences of their actions because if people can be reckless with impunity there is little if any incentive to make good decisions. If someone learns that failing to pay their electricity bill gets them cut off they'll learn not to do it again; if they learn that failing to pay their bill just means someone else will step in and take care of it why would they even attempt to reduce their usage or set any money aside to pay for it?

The sad part is that it is very easy to simply point fingers and offer a curious form of "help" that consists of little more than an observation that "I wouldn't start from here if I were you", when people have little option other than to start where they are. At the same time merely shoveling money in the general direction of people who might be considered "poor" does little to help with less measurable concepts like self-respect, confidence, and the like.

Here's another example for you. A guy I know has a really nasty draft in his house. It's been there for at least two years and maybe more, and he often mentions it. With a $10 tool and $5 worth of material he could have fixed it. He insists he has the tools and knows how to fix it, and yet in two years he hasn't actually fixed it. Even if he couldn't find what he needs he could buy everything from scratch for $15. During the depths of winter that draft probably costs him more than $15/month in extra heating costs so it's not as if it's a project that would take years to pay for itself. It's not even as if he doesn't have the $15, because he managed to find several hundred dollars to add to his already impressive collection of guns. What do you think "showing love" would look like, where this guy is concerned? Paying his heating bill merely enables him not bothering to address his problems. Telling him to get off his rear end and take responsibility for his situation is the kind of thing your post above would probably consider to be judging. And stepping in and just doing the work for him merely teaches the lesson that if you ignore something for long enough someone else will make your problem go away.

Yeah, credit is definitely a big problem. Also, with the credit - you need enough cash flow to get loans that mean anything! However, I don't think parents and schools teach people much about money. What do you think?

 

[tango]

Yeah, credit is definitely a big problem. Also, with the credit - you need enough cash flow to get loans that mean anything! However, I don't think parents and schools teach people much about money. What do you think?

Sometimes you don't need cash flow to get a loan. The problem loans leading up to the 2008 crash were called "liars' loans" for a reason.

It's nothing short of a national disgrace when kids aren't taught the basics of personal financial management. But then if they knew what they were doing they wouldn't end up in the clutches of the companies that make a very good living selling loans.

Of course another problem with credit is that it helps push prices higher, which further excludes those towards the lower end of the economic scale. Maybe you can't afford $40,000 for that new car but you can put $4,000 down and pay $1,000/month for four years. Never mind the fact that by the time you're done that $40,000 car actually cost you $52,000 - if you can afford the monthly payments you're less sensitive to the sticker shock you might get when you look at how much you actually paid. Sticker shock is the kind of thing that helps keep prices in check because if people refuse to pay $40,000 the basic laws of supply and demand require the market adjust the price. But with a nice easy credit application people not only cease to baulk at the price tag, they willingly pay a substantial premium in the form of loan interest just for bragging rights.

 

[Jason76]

Sometimes you don't need cash flow to get a loan. The problem loans leading up to the 2008 crash were called "liars' loans" for a reason.

It's nothing short of a national disgrace when kids aren't taught the basics of personal financial management. But then if they knew what they were doing they wouldn't end up in the clutches of the companies that make a very good living selling loans.

Of course another problem with credit is that it helps push prices higher, which further excludes those towards the lower end of the economic scale. Maybe you can't afford $40,000 for that new car but you can put $4,000 down and pay $1,000/month for four years. Never mind the fact that by the time you're done that $40,000 car actually cost you $52,000 - if you can afford the monthly payments you're less sensitive to the sticker shock you might get when you look at how much you actually paid. Sticker shock is the kind of thing that helps keep prices in check because if people refuse to pay $40,000 the basic laws of supply and demand require the market adjust the price. But with a nice easy credit application people not only cease to baulk at the price tag, they willingly pay a substantial premium in the form of loan interest just for bragging rights.

Well, many rightfully would be willing to "pay more" for "just a chance". I mean, time is limited. People don't live forever to save up money for college, cars, business loans. However, a lot of people can't even get their foot in the door. In that case, they never have anything,

 

[tango]

Well, many rightfully would be willing to "pay more" for "just a chance". I mean, time is limited. People don't live forever to save up money for college, cars, business loans. However, a lot of people can't even get their foot in the door. In that case, they never have anything,

You missed my point entirely.

When a critical mass of people use credit to afford the previously unaffordable all it does is nudge the price upwards, meaning more people have to use credit to make it affordable. The same easy credit that once helped improve life for a few now makes life harder for the masses.

 

[Jason76]

You missed my point entirely.

When a critical mass of people use credit to afford the previously unaffordable all it does is nudge the price upwards, meaning more people have to use credit to make it affordable. The same easy credit that once helped improve life for a few now makes life harder for the masses.

Well, at my age, I would want credit - cause I don't have the masses of time to save. But I do admit - my laziness/lack of planning in the past resulted in this dilemma.

 

[tango]

Well, at my age, I would want credit - cause I don't have the masses of time to save. But I do admit - my laziness/lack of planning in the past resulted in this dilemma.

As you continue to miss the point, were it not for the widespread availability of credit there would be less scope for prices to rise so high, meaning there would be less need for credit.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs when it becomes hard to function at all without borrowing for everything in sight, no?

 

[psalms 91]

Yet many that are poor have to do exactly that