Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 462 posts

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#31

Post by coldtea »

Snargorf wrote: post #13
coldtea wrote: post #3

What if? That's the whole idea of it. It's what keeps highly profitable (to the employee) jobs churning... Nobody would work in the conditions needed for diamond extraction or sweatshop clothing making for example, if it wasn't for dire poverty.

Sure they would. People will do almost any job, if they're paid enough. This is why military contractors in war zones, Arctic crab fishermen, and prostitutes make a lot of money. This is econ 101; supply and demand. You know it too. You're (presumably) not impoverished, but you'd work in diamond extraction or a clothing sweatshop, if you were paid enough.

>This is econ 101; supply and demand. You know it too. You're (presumably) not impoverished, but you'd work in diamond extraction or a clothing sweatshop, if you were paid enough.

When I say "nobody would do it" I don't mean "regardless of any condition whatsoever". Even if there wasn't poverty involved, slaves would obviously do it too (and they were ones doing such things, historically, right until the end of the colonies -- and in fact still in several places, using various conscription schemes).

Nor did I mean "regardless of working conditions". E.g. if they make it as easy as pressing a few buttons, many would have no issue doing it, even for a low wage.

The idea is that people wouldn't do the job under the current working conditions AND wages -- if it wasn't for dire poverty. "Supply and demand" is not some contradiction to that, rather it is the very mechanism required to take advantage of dire poverty to give those wages.

And of course "supply and demand" is rarely a "natural" and "neutral" thing -- you can skew it in a thousand ways. From passing special laws to keep people down and prevent development, to killing people's farmlands to make them come to the big industrial city to find some low paying factory job to survive.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#32

Post by pdkl95 »

Snargorf wrote: post #13
coldtea wrote: post #3

What if? That's the whole idea of it. It's what keeps highly profitable (to the employee) jobs churning... Nobody would work in the conditions needed for diamond extraction or sweatshop clothing making for example, if it wasn't for dire poverty.

Sure they would. People will do almost any job, if they're paid enough. This is why military contractors in war zones, Arctic crab fishermen, and prostitutes make a lot of money. This is econ 101; supply and demand. You know it too. You're (presumably) not impoverished, but you'd work in diamond extraction or a clothing sweatshop, if you were paid enough.

> if you were paid enough

I've always liked the idea that you should never turn down an offer or request. Instead, you should name your price. Sometimes that price might be functionally equivalent to turning down the offer, but there's always a tiny chance that someone might agree to your (probably laughably unreasonable) terms.

(I should really watch The Magic Christian again)

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#33

Post by douche »

sokoloff wrote: post #23
zanny wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not so sure the corner bodega belongs in the same category with the payday loan assholes. 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 t…

Corner stores make their profit on tobacco, alcohol and scratch tickets, though. The rest of it is just to give a patina of respectability.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#34

Post by lindenksv85 »

There is definitely a set of people for whom reducing poverty is not profitable. Unfortunately in SF you see this coming from a number of non profit affordable housing developers as well as tenants rights advocates who are often the loudest voices opposing adding housing supply and even fighting legislation for density bonuses for developments that include a high percentage of affordable housing. It took me a really long time to understand that actually fixing the housing problem inSF would mean that they lose a ton of government grants and that the executives of these orgs who often make over 200k would all lose their jobs. So it's not just in the private market- it's definitely the non profit sector too.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#35

Post by sokoloff »

douche wrote: post #33
sokoloff wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not so sure the corner bodega belongs in the same category with the payday loan assholes. 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 t…

Corner stores make their profit on tobacco, alcohol and scratch tickets, though. The rest of it is just to give a patina of respectability.

That's an excellent point. The lottery aspect does bug me a lot. (Though my "regular" grocer also has lottery, tobacco, and beer/wine, so I don't think the bodega is worse than the other grocers in that regard.)

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#36

Post by ams6110 »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #2

Poverty is profitable to other people. People who are in poverty often have to depend on services that are overpriced and predatory. From check cashing services, and payday lenders, to not being able to go to a grocery store where prices are better, but instead depending on smaller stores of convenience where the prices are often higher. The lottery depends on those in poverty. Sometimes I think even the police and c…

Sometimes I think even the police and city governments depend on people in poverty

You're right, but I don't think anyone has mentioned another big profiteer, the welfare bureaucracy itself. The government pays people to remain in poverty, and everyone employed in those programs is profiting from poverty and is incentivized for it to continue. So are the politicians who create these progams. It also contributes to the inflated the rents that the subject article complains about.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#37

Post by Tycho »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #26
erikpukinskis wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make poverty better? Free job training and placement, with a living stipend.

Presumably those companies that claim to have openings that they are desperately trying to fill in vain would pay for such training. Why do you think they do not?

Once someone is trained, they might just leave and work somewhere else.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#38

Post by toomuchtodo »

darawk wrote: post #19
darpa_escapee wrote: post #10

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.

> 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_cooperative

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#39

Post by joe_the_user »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #2

Poverty is profitable to other people. People who are in poverty often have to depend on services that are overpriced and predatory. From check cashing services, and payday lenders, to not being able to go to a grocery store where prices are better, but instead depending on smaller stores of convenience where the prices are often higher. The lottery depends on those in poverty. Sometimes I think even the police and c…

While plenty of money comes from businesses serving (or disserving) poor people, even more money comes from businesses serving wealthier people (with some portion of those services also qualifying as rip-offs).

The problem with the article is it makes the implication that the money made by vulture capitalists in poor areas is the biggest motivation for the existence of the poor.

But one can see a much larger beneficiary. If a company that automated a factory or moved a factory to a different region or country had to pay to support the wages of those workers it left behind, the costs of automation and mobility of capital would be much higher. Thus the ability of the poor to exist, the condition of each worker being on their own even if suddenly all the jobs in a given area dry up, is tremendously profitable to the largest industrial companies in the world.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

#40

Post by unclebucknasty »

Tycho wrote: post #37
unclebucknasty wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably those companies that claim to have openings that they are desperately trying to fill in vain would pay for such training. Why do you think they do not?

Once someone is trained, they might just leave and work somewhere else.

That can be contractualized, right?
Post reply on HN