>That’s the funny thing about being poor. Everyone has an opinion on it, and everyone feels entitled to share.
I guess "being poor" is a relative thing that depends on background and upbringing. When someone says they're poor this image is what comes to my mind, not couple of people with a Honda and Mercedes or ones buying root beer on a deal.
This is the same BS that comes up every time this issue emerges. I remember public outrage when a news station reported that (shocker) welfare recipients had refrigerators and microwaves. Just because you have a car, or a fridge, or even a TV, doesn't mean that you're not struggling to get by. Do we really think people need to lose literally everything they have before they're worthy of sympathy?
I don't believe capitalism has a stance on helping people in need. Please point me to any information you have that may state otherwise as I would be very curious to see their reasoning.
It reinforces the economic ignorance that stops people from recognizing that $1 spent on a capital good is better spent than $1 of a consumption good.
A fridge and microwave allows you to store and prepare meals more cheaply. Buying several hot dogs and buns at once--keeping them refrigerated, and heating what you eat in the microwave--is a lot cheaper in the long run than buying one pre-warmed hot dog from the convenience store whenever you get hungry.
A car that starts and operates reliably is so valuable in America that people would rather give up their houses and live in their cars than vice versa. Even the east coast, where the original municipal architecture predated cars, rather heavily relied upon horses for transportation. We have never been friendly to pedestrian travel (but pedestrian competitions are another story).
If you do not have a car, you are automatically a de facto second-class citizen. The smart thing to do is buy a used car near the start of the bottom of its bathtub curve of reliability, repair it until near the end, and then stop. You then buy your next used car, and it is your backup vehicle for when your original beater finally dies. So the most cost-effective transportation solution is often to have two cars: one older beater/grocery-getter and one newer and more reliable backup. It doesn't matter how many people are in your family. If you are poor, your car may be getting close to being uneconomical to repair, and you will still need to get around whenever it is undriveable.
Even the original article confirms this. Honda broke down. Mercedes was the backup.
Everybody does this if they can. If your car is in any way unreliable, you secure temporary backup transportation before it breaks down. If you have money, you can rent a car for a week, or use a loaner from your repair shop. If you don't, you must have a friend or relative that can drive you to and from work until you get your car back.
The outrage is as incomprehensible to me as being shocked if a poor soldier carries an expensive rifle, or if a poor electrician has an expensive fiberglass ladder instead of a cheaper aluminum one, or if a poor plumber installs expensive copper in his own house instead of PVC pipe and zinc fittings. You do not begrudge people the tools they need to do their jobs, so why would you complain about those they use to live their lives?
Too many people obsess over cost and ignore value. A capital investment may cost more initially, but it definitely provides more value over its useful lifespan.
So when you see a welfare recipient with a complete suite of kitchen appliances, two cars, and maybe even a television and Internet-connected computer, you can tell yourself that there is a person who can bounce themselves back out of the safety net someday, and probably sooner rather than later. Even if they don't, they might be able to throw a child out far enough for them to lower a rope back down. When you see the person that doesn't even have a grocery cart, that person is the one that will be costing the system the most money in the long run. Suggesting that people sell the things that help them survive and save money is absolutely the worst thing you can tell them.
So you keep the Mercedes. Start looking out for a used car to replace the old Honda that broke down. If you get tired of people giving you funny looks, get a can of rust-colored automotive paint and simulate some old body damage with it. Above all, you don't make stupid economic decisions because the people around you can't recognize a smart one.
That's not poor, that's absolutely impoverished. Poor doesn't mean you can't afford the basic necessities to live like a human being - the guy in your picture doesn't live like a human being, he lives like trash. Living like a human being doesn't just mean having two arms, two legs and breathing, it means living like everyone else - apartment, tables, chairs, a toilet, fresh running water, electricity, fridge, TV, PC, internet (well maybe not in america with your internet prices).
Poor isn't when you're with one foot in the grave, poor is when you have little money and a low income. That doesn't immediately make you a background character in a Dickensian novel who dies of hunger on the streets of New York. That doesn't mean having a fridge to store your food in is some frivolous expense - fridges are a basic necessity. A PC is a basic necessity if you want to get anywhere. What else would you deny people just so you can label them poor and feel nice and fuzzy in your heart knowing you're giving a tuppence to a guy who'll die a poetic death on the street? Clothes? Beds? Houses?
I am sorry that I am a little biased. My grandfather died in middle age because he couldn't afford medical care. My mom once picked up a snake instead of a pen while she was studying in the dark by candlelight because they couldn't afford electricity.
So, yes, fuck me for thinking someone should've saved money for the future by buying a cheaper car instead of driving around in a Mercedes and then expecting hardworking taxpayers who themselves are struggling and making do with an old Kia, to foot the bill when hard times roll in. I am surprised you're not advocating the government giving them a Tesla so that they can get out of their depression and feel better about being suddenly "poor".
If there was no WIC or food stamps, would they have sold the Mercedes to feed their twin babies and tried to use only their Honda?
You don't save money by trading in the highest-value capital good that you own and using the proceeds as operating funds.
You dump the house. The glaringly obvious best move in the story is to yield the deed to the house to the creditors, get bankruptcy protection for any deficiency, and use your former mortgage payment on a smaller apartment and upgraded renter's insurance. You get rid of everything that doesn't help you make money or help you keep it, and keep everything that does until someone comes and takes it from you. Never eat the last of your seed corn.
The car is still worth more to them than any money they could get from selling it, and they didn't have to pay extra to keep it.
I wouldn't say "fuck you" for your suggestion, but I do think that it was ill-considered, and that a depressingly large number of people would agree that it was a good idea.
I am also curious to know if your mother was ever able to train the snake well enough to produce recognizable writing with it.
Or keep the house and let the bank eat it until you get forced out, which could take many years. The bank took the risk too. Ideally (not reality unfortunately) it's a private deal between you and the bank, no taxpayer money involved.
Just thinking out loud. If they sold the house, could they afford to rent (1st and last month deposit) and would it be any cheaper than the house payment?
They don't sell the house. According to the article, they cannot sell it at a price high enough to satisfy the lienholders. Rather than shouldering the entire burden of a bad property investment alone, they can force the bank to take some of it.
If you have negative equity in a property that has negative cash flow, you really should get rid of it as fast as humanly possible, by any means at your disposal, no matter how much beans and rice you typically eat in a month.
Definitely not cheaper than no house payment. In NV for example there are thousands of homedebtors who haven't made a payment since 2008. They're effectively protected by state law until 2017.
I grew up "first world poor" in Appalachia and was approximately a hundred times better off than the man in that photo. I had a modest roof over my head, clothes, toys, food, utilities, a big yard, and among the best public schools in the country. My mother used food stamps at one point in the late 1980s when things were bad. Bad is a relative term.
It's interesting what (the generic) you think of as poor. On one hand it is a lot of the homeless downtown. On the other, I could 20 miles from a state capital working Fire / EMS, and be down dirt, overgrown trails to people living in double wides that honestly would be condemned on any number of levels, from health and safety, hygiene, let alone "how the hell is that still standing". I saw families of rats in living rooms, tarps over ceiling holes, holes through the floor to bare dirt beneath, people using swamp coolers and outdoor 'fridges' due to a lack of electricity... most of this is never seen, and never expected.
I don't know if you did this intentionally, but what you just wrote is a great example of what the quote is referring to. You've decided that since they're not literally dying from starvation then they deserve no sympathy and no help.
I for one would prefer to live in a world where poverty of the sort seen in your picture doesn't exist. Part of achieving that is being willing to help out others when they hit hard times but aren't necessarily on the verge of death. Raising the standard of living means just that: it means raising the base expectation of what life as a human being entails. When someone faces trouble and falls below that base expectation, others jump in to help.
The worst sin this couple did, as far as I can tell, is they bought some root beer with food stamps and didn't sell a car which they very much needed for reliable transportation. They used the government help when they needed it, then regained employment and are once again self-sufficient. This is exactly what these social services are for.
Let's suppose they got no help at all, like you seem to think would have been fair. They probably would have had to sell the car in order to feed their children (and themselves). They would have soon lost all modes of personal transportation, in fact, because their Honda broke down (and are you going to spend cash to repair it when you need every dime you have for food?). Therefore, they would have relied almost entirely on public transportation. The difficulty of finding new employment just doubled, meaning that the length of time they face poverty probably also just doubled.
But selling that car didn't fix the fundamental mathematical problem of "income < expenses." It only provided temporary capital at the expense of personal transportation and probably employment, meaning it actually exacerbated the real problem, which is increasing income rather than immediate cash reserves.
Oh, and by the way, back when they were making $120k, and now again that they have decent income again, they were (and now are again) paying so that others can receive the same help in similar situations.
Poor has always been relative and had extremes. Her story sounds like the upper end of poor [1]. They had no cash, stuck with a mountain of debt (relative to their significantly reduced income) and two children in poor health, all on $25k per year income. In the US, that's poor.
[1] Meaning, with resolution to their house situation, they might've been ok. But that's a huge expenditure each month with a risk of homelessness if they fail to make the payments.
Possibly, I've never had to deal with unemployment insurance so I have no idea what qualifies someone or how much you receive as compensation or for how long.
Your image of what "poor" is exists in this country; it just manifests itself in different ways and is largely ignored by, well, just about everybody (who isn't poor). I grew up in neighborhoods where, while not apparently starving as the person in your image, we were certainly undernourished and stressed in many other ways. What you "guess" with respect to "being poor" is, to be perfectly blunt, a guess made from apparent ignorance (not stupidity or intellectual ability; ignorance can be remedied by education).
Setting your rather narrow and shallow understanding of what "poor" is aside, the subject of this article is poor by American standards, and at least the way I read it the point isn't "pity us because we're on food stamps" so much as it is that the attitude of "being poor ought to be an humiliating condition" is ingrained in America.
I guess "being poor" is a relative thing that depends on background and upbringing. When someone says they're poor this image is what comes to my mind, not couple of people with a Honda and Mercedes or ones buying root beer on a deal.
http://imgur.com/xzfNmNZ