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

11–20 of 462 posts

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

#11

Post by sokoloff »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #10
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…

Predatory businesses are still exploitation. > Building such a business (and I assume running a 131 unit mobile home park) is absolutely work, the value of which is evident by the paying tenants. Running a sweatshop is still work, the value of which is evident by its customers. Just because someone needs to work or a place to live doesn't make it right or commendable.

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?

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

#12

Post by erikpukinskis »

sokoloff wrote: post #11
darpa_escapee wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Predatory businesses are still exploitation. > Building such a business (and I assume running a 131 unit mobile home park) is absolutely work, the value of which is evident by the paying tenants. Running a sweatshop is still work, the value of which is evident by its customers. Just because someone needs to work or a place to live doesn't make it right or commendable.

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?

To make poverty better? Free job training and placement, with a living stipend.

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

#13

Post by Snargorf »

coldtea wrote: post #3

What if? That's the whole idea of it. It's what keeps highly profitable (to the employee) jobs churning... Nobody would work in the conditions needed for diamond extraction or sweatshop clothing making for example, if it wasn't for dire poverty.

Sure they would. People will do almost any job, if they're paid enough.

This is why military contractors in war zones, Arctic crab fishermen, and prostitutes make a lot of money.

This is econ 101; supply and demand. You know it too. You're (presumably) not impoverished, but you'd work in diamond extraction or a clothing sweatshop, if you were paid enough.

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

#15

Post by FussyZeus »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #2

Poverty is profitable to other people. People who are in poverty often have to depend on services that are overpriced and predatory. From check cashing services, and payday lenders, to not being able to go to a grocery store where prices are better, but instead depending on smaller stores of convenience where the prices are often higher. The lottery depends on those in poverty. Sometimes I think even the police and c…

If you haven't seen it, look up the Last Week Tonight on municipal violations and prepare to get angry.

However there are a few things that are more explainable than others; check cashing places exist because banks are not designed for the poor at all. Thankfully this is, I think, going to change in the next few years what with all the startups cropping up to offer financial services to lower income people, since most of the shit the banks charge fees for is because they rely on antiquated processes and management that can be automated.

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

#16

Post by FussyZeus »

Snargorf wrote: post #13
coldtea wrote: post #3

What if? That's the whole idea of it. It's what keeps highly profitable (to the employee) jobs churning... Nobody would work in the conditions needed for diamond extraction or sweatshop clothing making for example, if it wasn't for dire poverty.

Sure they would. People will do almost any job, if they're paid enough. This is why military contractors in war zones, Arctic crab fishermen, and prostitutes make a lot of money. This is econ 101; supply and demand. You know it too. You're (presumably) not impoverished, but you'd work in diamond extraction or a clothing sweatshop, if you were paid enough.

The thing is though people are willing to pay a lot of money for crabs. No one is willing to spend crab money on, say, sweatshop clothing.

Going fishing on one of those boats is on my bucket list, once I'm not so flabby. I think it would be a hell of an experience.

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

#17

Post by zanny »

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…

And the people that provide goods and services now to the impoverished (especially the actual exploiters, like pay day loans and corner stores, and the manufacturers that supply the junk foods they eat and drink) have a financial incentive to keep people in poverty and grow their demographic. Combine that with an very easily corrupted government like the US has now, and you get corporations dictating policy to prevent economic upward mobility and create more poor to become dependent on their products.

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

#18

Post by gammarator »

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 those motels and you may be working multiple jobs, which limits your ability to cook nutritious food and eat cheaply. And the cycle continues.

Some of the stories in George Packer's "The Unwinding" [2] emphasize how narrow the margin of error is. Everyone makes poor choices from time to time; those with resources (financial & social) can weather them.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Nickel-Dimed-Not-Getting-America/dp/03... [2] http://www.amazon.com/Unwinding-Inner-History-New-America/dp...

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

#19

Post by darawk »

darpa_escapee wrote: post #10
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…

Predatory businesses are still exploitation. > Building such a business (and I assume running a 131 unit mobile home park) is absolutely work, the value of which is evident by the paying tenants. Running a sweatshop is still work, the value of which is evident by its customers. Just because someone needs to work or a place to live doesn't make it right or commendable.

What is the alternative? These people aren't forced to live there. If there were a cheaper, better alternative available to them, they'd probably take it.

Nobody is 'profiting from poverty' here. These landlords would make much more money if these people were wealthier! I'm sure 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.

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

#20

Post by zanny »

awqrre wrote: post #7

At first, when people are getting poorer, it is probably more profitable then in the long term (if nobody can spend money, how can it be profitable).

That is macro vs microeconomics. A business today cannot function in the market behaving morally for the good of society when all its competition is maximizing exploitation even the end result is the destruction of the consumer base they rely on.

The point is to take as much of the cargo as you can and jump ship just before it catches fire and hope to make it out safe at this point, considering the predatory behavior of capitalists in almost every industry and market nowadays.

Post reply on HN