21–30 of 462 posts
That sounds about right to me... I doubt anyone would consider it worth the hassle leasing 131 trailers if the income was say 100k.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed 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, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots…
People in poverty use services and consume goods. Someone provides those goods and services. Would they be better off if every business closed their doors to the impoverished, so as to not "make a buck off the poor"? Of course not! The trailer park owner in the article owns 131 units and "makes" (presumably grosses) $400K a year. Those units are about $250 per month, hardly the stuff of Viking-style pillaging, IMO. T…
And the people that provide goods and services now to the impoverished (especially the actual exploiters, like pay day loans and corner stores, and the manufacturers that supply the junk foods they eat and drink) have a financial incentive to keep people in poverty and grow their demographic. Combine that with an very easily corrupted government like the US has now, and you get corporations dictating policy to preven…
Yes, the corner bodega is more expensive than the full grocery store, but they also probably have way lower sales per hour of labor, lower sales per square foot, lower sales per other overhead (rent, insurance, security, utilities, taxes), higher credit card interchange fees, higher shrinkage and spoilage, and pay more for their inbound groceries than the large chain down the street. If my guesses are true, all of these are perfectly legitimate business expenses and the corner store owner needs a return on their investment, just like the large chain does. (Grocers operate on razor-thin overall margins. Average net margin for the supermarket industry was 1.3%, 1.9%, and "1-2%" in the first three references I could find online.) Anything that increases costs basically HAS to go to the price as there's nothing else left to flex.
Payday jackholes can DiaF for all I care, but even the prevalence of those is driving in part by the banking regulations meant to "punish the banks" which have the effect of making poor communities "money losing to serve". When the predictable bank pullouts happen and payday lenders move in, it's not that hard to see the connection. Let the banks make a profit and they'll serve the community; prohibit them from making a profit and they won't, leaving only the even less savory financial businesses.
The social safety net is pretty simple. Bob, A healthy worker is made unemployed, they can either take state assistance and find work 6 months later, leading to another 30 years of tax revenue, or let them default on mortgage, spiral into poverty and no tax. Now extend that so Bob needs six months rehab.
Housing built, owned and managed by the state (or so closely regulated it may as well be) has been a cornerstone of the social safety net. This article underlines that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Predatory businesses are still exploitation. > Building such a business (and I assume running a 131 unit mobile home park) is absolutely work, the value of which is evident by the paying tenants. Running a sweatshop is still work, the value of which is evident by its customers. Just because someone needs to work or a place to live doesn't make it right or commendable.
What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it. Nobody is 'profiting from poverty' here. These landlords would make much more money if these people were wealthier! I'm sure they'd love to make nicer places and charge higher rents with higher margins, but they can't, because that's all these people can pay.
Nicer places require larger capital outlays. The landlords chose their market, not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's think in terms of solutions. Concretely, what would you propose to change to make it better? Have you started to raise funds to start and run that business?
To make poverty better? Free job training and placement, with a living stipend.
Why do you think they do not?
At some point the governments in developed countries have stepped in to set some kind of limit on what's "reasonable".
IMHO, they're not doing enough in America right now, the enormous social divide is showing that to us clearly. Developed countries that have stronger laws have less people in severe poverty, because the government forces the wealthy to distribute their wealth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Predatory businesses are still exploitation. > Building such a business (and I assume running a 131 unit mobile home park) is absolutely work, the value of which is evident by the paying tenants. Running a sweatshop is still work, the value of which is evident by its customers. Just because someone needs to work or a place to live doesn't make it right or commendable.
Let's think in terms of solutions. Concretely, what would you propose to change to make it better? Have you started to raise funds to start and run that business?
> Have you started to raise funds to start and run that business?
No, because the incentives to continuously draw a greater profit from your customers goes against the need to provide housing to those who can't afford it.
One sign of this is that unemployment did not even exist several centuries ago in any kind of manner - all those who were capable (except again, those on top expropriating wealth created during worker's surplus labor time) worked.
This is openly discussed in the business press, like this (http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_44/b3653163.htm ) BusinessWeek article "When is the jobless rate too low?" It's not a secret that those who control production are working to create unemployment, poverty etc. It's a foundation of the current economic system.
What if Marx was right?