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

191–200 of 462 posts

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

#191

Post by kefka »

imaginenore wrote: post #151
jetskindo wrote: post #148

Here is a place that sucks the money out of the poor for no particular benefit: check cashings. You cash your check for a good percentage of it. If they had a bank account they wouldn't need to spend that money. I don't know how it is in other states but the last time I opened a bank account in California it was a pain. The amount of information needed is certainly not possible for a huge chunk of people.

That's why bitcoin and alternatives are so important. Banking for everyone.

Oh please.

Unless you were in on the ground floor with CPU mining, you aren't getting many coins now. There was only 6 months where you could use GFX cards, and now the "room full of ASICs" take the cake.

Bitcoin is useful if you have goods, services, or currency to convert to it. It is not "free magical money".

Its main attribute is that it is stateless... and that's a big deal and also not a big deal to those whom are in poverty.

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

#192

Post by tamana »

tmptmp wrote: post #164
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Social Security. Unemployment insurance. WIC/SNAP (food stamps). Government mandates affordable housing on major transit lines. Non-usurious Government loans for the working poor, secured against income. Stuff we already do, but should do more.

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

#193

Post by tbrownaw »

danharaj wrote: post #179
tbrownaw wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So are you claiming that the tenants mentioned are somehow worse off than if those trailers weren't available for rent at all? For something to be unethical, someone has to be harmed by it, yes?

Is it so hard to grasp that local optimization does not necessarily lead to globally favorable conditions?

So anything that's part of a system that isn't perfectly ideal is unethical now?

There are certain constraints that any large-scale system made of people has to work under, for example the sort of things that make communism not work very well at scales larger than a small commune.

Any localized parts of such a system, need to mesh properly with the larger system.

Much that is demonized as "exploitative" (not all, but a lot of it), seems to only be considered as such because people look at the immediate imperfections, and disregard the problems that would result from attempting to "fix" those imperfections.

I contend that the landlord mentioned is an example of this. You and the poster I initially replied to are providing no substantive arguments against this, but merely implying a lack of critical thought by anyone who doesn't stop their reasoning at the immediate local effects.

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

#194

Post by tamana »

johnpmayer wrote: post #71
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?

I mean, it's all about "for whom" in this question. What's better, widgets and a polluted stream, or no widgets? Depends on whether society values the fish.

..or the people eating the fish and drinking the water.

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

#195

Post by tamana »

petra wrote: post #102
sokoloff wrote: post #11

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?

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…

"Non-profit" is an ownership structure. It doesn't guarantee that management isn't commanding extortionate salaries.

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

#196

Post by tamana »

tmptmp wrote: post #166
cududa wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prob…

"Land Value Tax". This is well studied area of economics.

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

#197

Post by superuser2 »

mychael wrote: post #96
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…

This reads to me as "People have no money because they have no money", which is tautological.

It's a little more than that: focusing on the expense side is useless, nothing is going to help much besides increasing income.

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

#198

Post by vorg »

> The standard measure is that your rent should be no more than 30% of your income, but for poor people it can be 70% or more. [...] Money from government programmes intended to help the poor – welfare, disability benefits, the earned-income tax credit – go straight into the landlord’s pocket and, ironically, fuel rising housing costs.

In these types of economies (the US, Australia, etc), a Universal Basic Income would just make rents go up, just like easy 95% equity loans made house prices go up.

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

#199

Post by brndn »

a_bonobo wrote: post #155
jetskindo wrote: post #148

Here is a place that sucks the money out of the poor for no particular benefit: check cashings. You cash your check for a good percentage of it. If they had a bank account they wouldn't need to spend that money. I don't know how it is in other states but the last time I opened a bank account in California it was a pain. The amount of information needed is certainly not possible for a huge chunk of people.

Australia has another business model that is predatory on the poor: home appliance renting. The dole payment isn't large enough to afford the price of a washing machine - but it is enough to afford the rent for one. Of course in the end you'll wind up paying much more than the outright buy price, but you can't help it, you can't afford to buy the machine. (Of course these places rent out much more than the "needed" a…

US has something similar called Rent-A-Center.

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

#200

Post by chillingeffect »

tmptmp wrote: post #164
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think one of the keys would be allowing people to live in improvised housing, a la Brazilian favelas. Loosening or repealing housing standards and property would reduce stress on these people. e.g. let people in bushes or trailers without forcing them out.

second, receiving mail was listed as a problem. how to get people their mail for important papers?

third, allocating land for farming their own food. why should they have to take part in the rest of our food economy if they can't fork over $1.25 for an apple? Just let them tend trees with their time.

fourth: transportation. often you have to get someplace. how can we design public transportation so it gets the poorest where they need to go reliably?

Post reply on HN