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

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

#161

Post by unclebucknasty » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 2:27 AM UTC

zdragnar wrote: post #135

unclebucknasty wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can be contractualized, right?

I believe that's called indentured servitude, and at least in the US, cannot be enforced by contract law.

>indentured servitude.

No, it's not. And, I wouldn't dismiss out of hand what can be "enforced by contract law". The contract itself represents the willingness of two parties to adhere to certain terms. If a company pays you a million dollar signing bonus and asks you for a three year commitment, then you should expect them to demand that bonus back if you leave in two years for reasons not set forth by the terms. And, you should expect claims of "indentured servitude" to fall on deaf ears in court. You can leave. You just can't keep the money.

Similarly, companies wouldn't enforce that the person continue to work for them; simply that they must repay their training costs if they don't.

This is currently done by some companies, for instance, with MBA sponsorships. They're sometimes called "loyalty contracts".

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

#162

Post by arkades » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

nkurz wrote: post #70

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…

What's different about the payday loan industry such that the "better to have some alternative than no alternative" argument not apply? Running such a business clearly takes lots of work, and clearly there is lots of demand for the services they provide. What differentiates them from other business that provide "value"?

They take extraordinarily high margins, often involving mis-representation to their customers along the way (largely by illustrating their fees as flat numbers, which obfuscates that if you translate it into actual APR terms - to compare to other lenders - they're asking for what equates to absolutely ridiculous interest rates).

Generally, if there's a demand for a service, people should come flooding in and reduce the marginal profits through competition. In this case, people came rushing in ... and profit margins went up over time. This alone, in a big picture perspective, suggests shadiness (though not by itself guaranteeing it, since you could argue for growth in demand outstripping the growth in supply).

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

#163

Post by pmarreck » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 2:28 AM UTC

See if you can model the problem mathematically/computationally.

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

#164

Post by tmptmp » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 2:29 AM UTC

eli_gottlieb wrote: post #140

ctdonath wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, say those "exploitive" businesses didn't exist. That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/employees would have no options (not even "exploitive" ones). Is having no option better than having a bad option, when good options aren't available?

Make the alternatives exist. It's an engineering problem. Solve it.

Can you please list some alternatives? That will help us understand the situation better.

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

#165

Post by dublinben » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 2:35 AM UTC

bardworx wrote: post #145

ubernostrum wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't subsequently mean "non-exploitive" alternatives would exist, it just means those customers/employees would have no options (not even "exploitive" ones). The hidden assumption here is that producing the goods and services required to keep a single human being alive in relative comfort (fed, sheltered, educated, healthy) necessarily requires an expenditure of manual effort roughly equivalent to what that h…

Isn't Communism very similar to your perfect world? All the people were provided for and they worked for everyone and everyone was equal. However, that didn't work out too well. In any system, some folk will always squatter and some will always attempt to gain power/advantage. Your world sounds too much like Atlas Shrugged.

>However, that didn't work out too well.

When was communism actually implemented, that it didn't "work out too well" in your opinion?

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

#166

Post by tmptmp » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 2:36 AM UTC

cududa wrote: post #154

petra wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few Ideas: 1. Let a non-profit run those kinds of businesses. The non-profit , before starting would establish clear rules that prevent eviction, discrimination and the other nasty stuff. Financing should be gotten from institutional investors, by promising some fixed rate of return. 2. Let the government run that, it works pretty well in many places around the world , in creating a relatively stable living environme…

2 and 3 sound like basically section 9 housing. I like 1 - any ideas how you'd get the land for these? Would existing trailer parks be bought out?

Get some land off from the existing land-owners who have it in excess over some threshold (by legislating some "ceiling on land-holding" act). Of course, that should not be done entirely in the "communist style" though, i.e. it can be done by giving them reasonable compensation.

I guess, some "ceiling on land-holding" act is a must if we want reasonable check on inequality. Currently the US economy stinks of the problems of feudalism - some kings and barons with a lot of land and then some more people down their rank with some land while the rest of the people with almost no land and perpetual poverty.

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

#167

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 2:38 AM UTC

gammarator wrote: post #18

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…

Barbara Erenreich's book "Nickled and Dimed" [1] is a good illustration of how lack of cash forces the working poor to make economically sub-optimal choices. An example will suffice: without the savings needed to put down a security deposit for an apartment, you are forced to leave in cheap motels (absent options like living with others or in a shelter), even though the monthly rate is higher. There's no kitchen in t…

And Scratch Beginning by Adam Shepard is a good illustration of how a hard working person can work his way from homeless to middle class in under a year.

http://amzn.to/1RZZHhf

There are apparently good choices and bad - Erenreich illustrates how making the bad choices keeps you poor, while Shepard illustrates how making the good choices can you out of poverty.

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

#168

Post by unclebucknasty » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 2:40 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #58

unclebucknasty wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That can be contractualized, right?

The entire US is at-will employment. It can't be. About the most you can do is try to claw-back your training expenses if they don't stay for a certain number of years, but you can't squeeze blood from a stone. That money was already spent on basic necessities of life and can't be recovered.

>That money was already spent on basic necessities of life and can't be recovered

Presumably, if the training were significant enough to be worth the company pursuing it and the now ex-employee found it economically better to use those skills elsewhere, then there might be significant enough income against which to make a claim.

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

#169

Post by massysett » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 2:45 AM UTC

OJFord wrote: post #63

unclebucknasty wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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…

If this market were wealthier it wouldn't exist. The tenants would be getting mortgages or renting nicer apartments, not living in trailer parks. And, because governments like to have higher income residents, they would have more choices of where to live, as trailer parks are exiled to the fringe. Some of these market dynamics exist precisely because these people are poor and the landlords have no incentive for their customers to be better off, just like Walmart would not be better off if its customers got more money and started going to Macys.

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

#170

Post by petra » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 2:48 AM UTC

CydeWeys wrote: post #150

petra wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's for a second assume that people stay in the same house for 30 years[1]. Why can't they just purchase the house cooperative slowly with each rent payment ? My grandma in Israel paid rent in a public housing that had exactly such an arrangement, and after becoming a pensioner, she was finally able to purchase her house. And i have no doubt such arrangements are one reason why Israel, a nation establshed from poor…

The people in the linked article are frequently moving between housing, though. If they had thirty solid years of employment lined up they wouldn't be in their situation to begin with. What you're proposing is rent-to-own, which the vast majority of people would never make any headway on.

What about adding something like transferable shares mechanism - so so you could use your ownership stake in another house if you want you need to move?