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?

#211

Post by gear54rus » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 4:26 AM UTC

herbetdangerbri wrote: post #80

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…

> they feel no remorse for taking advantage of someone else I don't understand what it means 'to take advantage of someone else' in the context of this thread. Is Starbucks taking advantage of me when I want a coffee by selling me a coffee? Is Elton John taking advantage of my desire to see him play live at my party and the fact that there is only one of him by charging me a million dollars to appear? Are the bus com…

Well that's pretty easy.

The most obvious form comes from the good old (bs) saying that 'the real price is what the buyer is ready to pay' (feel free to correct me here as to actual form of that).

Hiking up price to a drug (the shkreli story) would be an exploitation and not a 'normal economic transaction'.

So would be buying time of some poor workers in China for a dime. And then selling what they make on a 10x margin and pocketing it. There's nothing economic about that, its plain old theft (or deceit, whatever you want to call it).

There are more subtle forms, like apple spreading bs about their products being 'the best' and them having a 'vision' and then some uninformed fella buying stuff they make when its sometimes twice the price for objectively comparative product. Like always the devil is in the details.

This is all highly endorsed by the 'greed is good' model and it won't stop until we denounce it. No amount of government regulations can change it, snakes will always find a way. It's all in people's heads.

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

#212

Post by tamana » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 4:27 AM UTC

orangecat wrote: post #113

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…

if WalMart et. al. could, they would pay 3 cents an hour Sure. Of course they can't, because most of the time even poor people have other options. Also WalMart has in fact supported raising the minimum wage, which is either a virtuous act of corporate responsibility or an attempt to increase the burden on their competitors. because the government forces the wealthy to distribute their wealth I just finished my taxes.…

Walmart can "Support" raising the minimum wage but conveniently fail to achieve it.

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

#213

Post by brbsix » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 4:31 AM UTC

c0nducktr wrote: post #204

brbsix wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children will suffer either way. You can accept a relatively small amount of suffering and address the issue in the here and now (stigmatize the women, pose alternatives like adoption, thus set an example of what not to do) or you can go the other route (make excuses, subsidize their behavior) and end up with a massive self-perpetuating culture of single motherhood, dysfunction, and criminality in the long run. We're…

Oh are there only those two options?

Those are just two ends of a spectrum. There are plenty of ways to address this. Personally, I'd immediately end the drug war (thus massively alleviating single-motherhood in black communities) and look into changes to divorce/alimony law and the family court system. Ending the aforementioned subsidies referenced by the OP would be massively beneficial as well. Unfortunately there are a lot of entrenched interests associated with everything I've just mentioned, so barring some sort of catastrophe, I suspect a cultural/social approach (e.g. stigmatization) is likely to be the most immediate and realistic place to start.

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

#214

Post by tamana » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 4:34 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #167

gammarator wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Indeed, being young, male, healthy, educated, and white is a great way to bootstrap out of poverty.

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

#215

Post by tamana » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 4:37 AM UTC

awt wrote: post #115

c0nducktr wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if single mothers were held responsible for their choice to have children with bad men? Then children will suffer.

Without welfare, the mother would likely give he children up for adoption by responsible people that can afford them. At least she would have that choice, and the choice to raise the children in poverty, thus causing them to suffer, would still be hers.

People are lining up around the block to adopt poor non-white babies?

Mothers have no natural human emotions of attachment to their offspring?

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

#216

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 4:39 AM UTC

tamana wrote: post #208

WalterBright wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people know how to create value, i.e. combine A and B and wind up with A*B of value. Take Edison, for example. He made himself a fortune by figuring out how to take a glass bottle and add a bamboo filament, and sell a light bulb.

Edison was a capitalist manager and salesman, not much of an inventor. How much value he created vs extracted is up for debate.

Not much of an inventor? Read Josephson's biography "Edison".

http://www.amazon.com/Edison-Biography-Matthew-Josephson/dp/...

You'll be astonished. There's never been anyone else remotely as prolific an inventor.

He pretty much invented the electric power industry. The value of that is almost incalculable. It's hard to see how that is "extractive".

Could you name who you consider a real inventor?

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

#217

Post by ultramancool » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 4:41 AM UTC

tamana wrote: post #205

ultramancool wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even the payday loan guys aren't that bad, many of their users are people who legit just need emergency cash and will pay it back on their next payday. Freakonomics did a pretty good episode discussing advantages and problems with it recently.

A huge portion of payday loans are repeat loans from people trapped in a cycle of debt, taking out loans to pay off interest on previous usurious loans. Yes, payday loans have defait risk, whixh is part of why they are expensive. But that also shows that many borrowers can't acurally afford them. And the cost of defaults is borne by...the next-pooorest people who barely scrape by, who DO lay off their loans, but pay…

From what I've heard it seems like about 60% are completely competent loans. It's those other 40% which are roll overs. Note I'm not talking % of customers here but % of loans. Yeah, 40 is still bad, but there a legit demand too.

Some have suggested that a governmental or other instution needs to be made just to break people out of the cycle and give them a loan at a rate closer to that of credit cards. It's a tricky situation though from a regulatory perspective because you don't want to have those 60% of people who are avoiding massive overdraft fees or dropping credit scores using these services to get stuck with no options.

Personally I think if you sign up for a loan you can't pay, that's on you, not really exploitative as some people seem to propose. Take some personal responsibility, you know?

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

#218

Post by known » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 4:44 AM UTC

Most politicians doesn't want you to prosper; They fear you'll vote for your CONSCIENCE in elections;

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

Most https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominant_minority doesn't want you to prosper; They fear you'll dilute their HEGEMONY in the society;

If we dwell deep higher social class exhibits increased UNETHICAL behaviour

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1118373109

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

#219

Post by tomjen3 » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 5:02 AM UTC

Consultant32452 wrote: post #159

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 think it depends. Not having access to temporary credit at all is better than pay day loans. Of course, I'm saying that from my proverbial ivory tower. Philosophically I don't support banning those things, but I'll be damned if they're not fucking evil incarnate.

Payday loans are better than paying for your electricity to be turned on again and to replace all the groceries that spoiled in your fridge, because you were fifty dollars short on your utility bill.

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

#220

Post by duaneb » Mon, Apr 11, 2016, 5:09 AM UTC

tbrownaw wrote: post #94

duaneb wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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?

Ethics is not binary. It is ethical to provide shelter. It is more ethical to provide shelter without profiting. The landlord has expenses, including perhaps a vacation, but they should be minimized.

I dont have much beef with the trailer park owner in question, but you are simplifying the variables at play. The net win for everyone would be providing shelter at absolute minimum cost, including for the people maintaining the trailers for others. A landlord's profits may stand in the way of this.