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

81–90 of 462 posts

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

#81

Post by branchless »

Retric wrote: post #68
zw123456 wrote: post #59

There is an old saying that "if you took all the money away from all the rich people, and spread it around evenly to everyone else, within 2 or 3 years, all the formerly rich would be rich again having taken advantage of the poor who don't know how to make and keep money". This adage, although heartless to be sure, has some degree of truth to it in my view. The problem is twofold, 1) a lot of people become rich not b…

Depends, if you distribute resources aka stock land etc then you are going to end up with a different set of rich people. If you just redistribute money then it's like handing out money in monopoly after every property is bought, it might make the game take longer but the end game is not going to change.

Yes, because just as in the game monopoly when you have land ownership from which you can derive rent you inexorably end up in this situation. All value added flows to the landlords.

This was the original point of the game, originally named "The landlords game" and later renamed "Monopoly".

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/apr/11/secret-h...

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

#82

Post by kspaans »

minikites wrote: post #4

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…

How much risk-adjusted-reward is there in loaning Vimes money for the boots? Or in loaning him money for an annual bus pass that saves him 10% over a monthly bus pass?

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

#83

Post by pmiller2 »

CydeWeys wrote: post #54
sokoloff wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

The lottos are state-run though. Don't blame the bodega owner, blame the government for financially preying on poor people who are bad at math in the first place. I don't think you can really criticize someone too much for selling something that the government plays ads for on the radio.

> bad at math

It's not primarily that people are bad at math. It's that they don't see any other way out. I've seen data that show that people play lotteries "for money" at higher rates the lower their income is. I can't find the exact citation, but here's a CMU article about study that shows something similar: http://www.cmu.edu/news/archive/2008/July/july24_lottery.sht...

We really just need to end state-run lotteries. The problem is that the states depend on this regressive tax for revenue.

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

#84

Post by brightball »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #76
OJFord wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The landlords chose their market, not the other way > around. That goes against.. almost all economic thought. You don't choose to make umbrellas for the umbrella market, and just keep churning out umbrellas, perpetually disappointed by the fine weather. This market is profitable, but if it were wealthier, it would be more profitable. There's no incentive for a business-owner in such a place to somehow keep the loc…

> You don't choose to make umbrellas for the umbrella market, and just keep churning out umbrellas, perpetually disappointed by the fine weather. You do if people keep buying them, irrespective of the weather. You've misread my comment. I'm not saying that the landlords create the market; simply that the landlords chose a market that requires less capital outlay, and also with full knowledge that the market is not ty…

That is entirely the point though.

If a landlord is about to chose a market that requires less capital outlay it's because there is an unfilled need in that market. Without the lower cost housing the tenants will only have fewer options, potentially more expensive ones at that.

If all of the needs are filled and somebody else decides to target the market then they have to find a way to disrupt it, in this case that probably means figuring out how to reduce costs and charge less.

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

#85

Post by danharaj »

CydeWeys wrote: post #79
danharaj wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't see any alternatives because you are not challenging the premise of private property enforced by a state. That is a very strong assumption that precludes most possibilities. And state property is just a degenerate form of private property where one entity owns everything.

So what exactly are you proposing then? If no one can own anything then the best available will be little more than tents; think nomadic hunter-gatherer societies.

That's an incredible statement, what's your support for it?

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

#86

Post by bufordsharkley »

"The beggar is the necessary supplement to the millionaire." - Henry George, as paraphrased by Tolstoy.

Ever since I first saw Henry George's ideas, I can't stop seeing it everywhere; there's a very real difference between the return to rent than for other capital or labor.

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

#87

Post by brbsix »

grecy wrote: post #27

Of course it profitable, which is why we have things like minimum wage - if WalMart et. al. could, they would pay 3 cents an hour, or even better consume peoples living and eating and entire lives like factories in China. 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…

Don't you want to get the highest salary for a particular job? Don't you want to pay the lowest price for a particular product? Employers are just doing the same.

So what if WalMart wants to hire someone for 3 cents an hour? Maybe I'd like to pay my doctor $1/hr. Either way, it's probably not going to happen. People will not accept $0.03/hr for a job unless it is of benefit to them. Also I find it incredibly condescending to believe you (or the government) know the opportunities available to people in poverty better than they themselves do.

Lastly with regards to 'government forces the wealthy to distribute their wealth', wealthy people generally have quite a few options, to include the option to exempt themselves from paying what some would consider "their fair share".

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

#88

Post by duaneb »

sokoloff wrote: post #5

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…

Just because an act provides net value to a community does not mean it is ethical.

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

#89

Post by nxzero »

jdietrich wrote: post #77

The thesis is transparently false. While the deprivations of poverty may be exacerbated by exploitative business practices, they are self-evidently caused by a lack of income. Software developers in San Francisco or lawyers in NYC may complain about high rents, but they are not impoverished by those rents. Someone living on $733/mo of SSI remains poor even if their rent is free. The author mentions a significant root…

Poverty has ultimately nothing to do with opportunity, but those less unfortunate; literally, those without luck. Buffett would be the first to acknowledge that he's been lucky, and I would claim that while it's completely true that poverty has many sources, I would not agree that luck cannot be removed from the process. As such, poverty will always be with us.

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

#90

Post by sound_of_basker »

zw123456 wrote: post #59

There is an old saying that "if you took all the money away from all the rich people, and spread it around evenly to everyone else, within 2 or 3 years, all the formerly rich would be rich again having taken advantage of the poor who don't know how to make and keep money". This adage, although heartless to be sure, has some degree of truth to it in my view. The problem is twofold, 1) a lot of people become rich not b…

Clinically, I can state that I am a live and let live person. Am not quoting that as a boon or bane. I suspect most people are. And this lot, while they can dig themselves out of poverty, cannot become rich. The reason is there is the small group that does not have the live and let live wired it. That that trait is good or bad is up for debate. It is this small group that ends up being rich given enough catalysts. They think only about themselves.
Post reply on HN