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

391–400 of 462 posts

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

#391

Post by clavalle »

>The main condition holding them back, Desmond argues, is rent.

This is a symptom. The main condition is that they have to bargain with their life (or physical suffering) on the balance for nearly everything including rent.

When the choice is pay rent you can't afford or live on the street (a severe risk to one's life) then you will pay whatever you are able.

The same goes for selling their time for less than it is worth for decades at a time. It is either that or die or be in pain. This is also very profitable for the parties on the other side of the equation.

This seems like the defining feature of poverty and why it is worth fighting. When people are not bargaining with their life on the line, they will make decisions to improve their lot rather than to merely lose less.

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

#392

Post by logfromblammo »

pliny wrote: post #291
crdoconnor wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If every time you took an ambulance you were forced to sign over 80% of your wealth or be left to die in the streets in a 'voluntary exchange', that would be exploitation. The difference between that and slumlords is simply a matter of degree. Desperation is the route to profit in both cases. Truly voluntary exchanges without gaping chasms of systemic inequality do not provide opportunities for sustained profit.

>If every time you took an ambulance you were forced to sign over 80% of your wealth or be left to die in the streets in a 'voluntary exchange', that would be exploitation. What is wrong with this scenario? If there were no ambulance service I automatically choose "Die" (which is, apart from matters of inheritance, always the wrong choice), but if there is the ambulance service I can buy my life for the relatively me…

All prices, everywhere, are limited in some way by the cost of a torches-and-pitchforks mob to storm the chateau.

I'd pay the price on the spot, because I like not being dead. But afterward, I think I'd try to rob that guy to get my 80% back, and maybe some of the 80% from some other people. That's not a "thank you so much, you're my hero" price. That's a "better watch your back" price.

When too many people start to see you as a parasite upon their community rather than a foundation pillar for it, they will certainly reduce their rate of cooperation with you, and some may retaliate. You may have to acquire a taste for other people's spit in your restaurant food, for instance. And worst of all, you may motivate someone to launch a business in direct competition with yours.

Then, if your choice is 80% to the dirty exploiter or waiting a few more minutes for a Medic-Uber to pick you up take you to the hospital, you would almost have to be gushing blood from a major artery to accept the former.

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

#393

Post by brianwawok »

ebiester wrote: post #354
brianwawok wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well a sane person should cap housing expenses at 25% of income at most. If you can't afford a place, time to move. If you can't afford anyplace, minimum wage has a problem.

That's the problem. The places that are affordable don't have jobs, and the places that have jobs don't have affordable housing. As soon as a place has jobs, the affordable housing disappears. This sounds like supply and demand, but is exacerbated by investment concerns changing the dynamics of the market.

I hardly think it is this extreme. Switching back to specifically talking about developers (while the above was a more general statement):

Look at the pay and housing cost in downtown SF. Now compare pay and housing costs to other places, say Austin, Chicago, Indianapolis, etc.

Yes you may make 400k in SF, but I don't think that buys you a lower standard of living. People look at raw $$ too much, and not cost of living when making job decisions.

Kind of a natural imbalance in the market.

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

#394

Post by brianwawok »

wolfgke wrote: post #384
ebiester wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the problem. The places that are affordable don't have jobs, and the places that have jobs don't have affordable housing. As soon as a place has jobs, the affordable housing disappears. This sounds like supply and demand, but is exacerbated by investment concerns changing the dynamics of the market.

> This sounds like supply and demand, but is exacerbated by investment concerns changing the dynamics of the market. This rather sounds like the lack of jobs that allow remote work is the fundamental problem.

This is not helping it. I bet 50% of office jobs could be remote. What is the current %, I would guess under 1%.

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

#395

Post by brianwawok »

baq wrote: post #341
brianwawok wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well a sane person should cap housing expenses at 25% of income at most. If you can't afford a place, time to move. If you can't afford anyplace, minimum wage has a problem.

that for most people means you have to move far into the suburbs.

That's like if I said "You shouldn't buy a tesla X if you make under a million bucks a year" and you replied "that for most people means they have to drive a gas powered Jeep".

Maybe? But maybe living within your means is more important than a sense of being entitled to live in or drive a specific thing.

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

#396

Post by fucking_tragedy »

tamana wrote: post #215
awt wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Single-mothers gave up their humanity when sleeping with "bad men" apparently.

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

#397

Post by dragontamer »

Noos wrote: post #263
dragontamer wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Predatory businesses are still exploitation. I don't think providing housing for an average of $250 / month is exploitation or predatory. In fact, a number of mobile home communities are beginning to cater towards child molesters only, because child molesters need homes too. (also, the police tend to hang around sex-offenders and check up on them, so they also make good tenants). Win/Win for everyone. Sex offenders…

It's not about elitism. The towns don't like mobile homes because the value of an individual home is tiny, and doesn't add much to the tax rolls.

Do you ever attend a community Town Hall or Home Owner's Association?

Meetings rarely talk about the budget, for better or for worse. You'll get legions of concerned mothers talking about the dirty homeless people at the motels and ways to build fences around the motels to protect the kids... or Single-Family homeowners complaining about the black people in the Apartments (I kid you not)... and setting up cameras or paying officers / security firms to patrol those locations.

But NEVER have I ever seen anyone complain about low-property taxes of a specific unit at a homeowner's association / town hall. Literally never. People don't give a shit about the budget, they're just too far removed to understand that kind of an issue.

Based on my experience, I'm going to call this elitism, not a budget issue.

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

#398

Post by unclebucknasty »

Natsu wrote: post #262
unclebucknasty wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually a thoughtful comment, irrespective of whether one "agrees with communism". Not sure why it's being downvoted.

It's terribly vague and offers no insight as to which things Marx might have been right about. There's a child comment that's a bit better, but it dumps a lot of Wikipedia links out with little in the way of explanation. In short, on HN it's better if you can explore ideas more thoroughly, rather than simply tossing out short quips and assuming everyone is on the same page. It would be better to write something along…

Or it could be viewed as a provocative, open-ended question, inviting exploration by those more versed on Marx's work.

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

#399

Post by collyw »

thecopy wrote: post #264
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>In what sense is their landlord purveying their misery? In the sense that he or she is charging 70% of their monthly income for rent. And it's coercion alright if the alternative is being left homeless.

>In the sense that he or she is charging 70% of their monthly income for rent. No. He or she is charging an absolute amount, not a percentage of their payslip. >And it's coercion alright if the alternative is being left homeless. Coercion /koʊˈɜːrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner by use of intimidation or threats or some other form of pressure. There is no coercion here. Po…

I am pretty sure there would be legal threats as soon as the rent isn't paid.

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

#400

Post by paulojreis »

olifante wrote: post #379
paulojreis wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Portuguese here. Same crap, everyday, everywhere. :)

You must live in a different Portugal than the one I know. While I admit perceptions of corruption are quite high among Portuguese, actual corruption is not that high, at least according to the international metrics I've seen. We're certainly not a mafia state or anything close to that.

> You must live in a different Portugal than the one I know.

Everybody does, right? It's my perception, as you have yours.

From where I stand, laws are ignored as if they didn't exist, people care only about themselves and the quid pro quo is the currency to achieve anything in a timely manner. The rot is everywhere, from the guy which slows down traffic because he parked in the middle of the road to get broad, to municipal services and e.g. construction licenses.

Post reply on HN