From that socialist rag, The Economist, a look at how being poor doesn't just mean not being able to afford stuff. It means the stuff you can afford is more expensive to get. For example, if you have a bank account, you probably don't have a minimum balance to avoid fees; if you don't have an account, each transaction (checks, money orders, ATM withdrawals for unemployment or benefits) can carry an additional cost. And, of course, those extra costs and fees are, in perspective, much higher.
Nothing new here, but worth repeating and remembering.
It’s expensive to be poor
WHEN Ken Martin, a hat-seller, pays his monthly child-support bill, he uses a money order rather than writing a cheque. Money orders, he says, carry no risk of going…
111 view(s)
The sign said
"Everyone Welcome
cover charge $5.00"
Guess I was a nobody for not having five bucks
Well if you didn't send billions a year to the terrorist state of Israel you might have money to help those in need!!!
Or paying taxes on unemployment & SS.
Required to pay insurance.
If self employed double SS, higher utility costs.
Zoning laws that force additional transportation costs for shopping/work/school.
Socialist B.S. Being stupid is what is expensive. Every state has credit unions that don't require minimum balance or a $1 minimum.
And where does the person come up with the $25 or $50 to buy the required share in the credit union to open an account in the first place, +Al Casey?
+Al Casey Yes, The Economist is such a mouthpiece for anarchist propaganda. If only poor people would stop being stupid and just visited all the credit unions in their local neighborhoods, their problems would be solved.
+Dave Hill
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken
Create jobs. Restaurant Tips… Church Offerings… Pay tax…. This post is Nonsense to harass The USA.
+MJ NYC In this case, I think that answer is "Then let them eat cake."
+Dave Hill The cake is a lie.
+Hae Kim Certainly increasing the opportunity for living wages for the poor would alleviate some of those problems. I'm not sure I follow you on tips, offerings, and taxes, though.
Don't I know it! I've been upper upper middle class..fairly flush, to having to live on $770/month. gets mighty tuff, but I discovered my hidden creativity. Not that i'm supporting poverty..avoid it if you can.
Yes, there is a high cost for low living. I also believe in my heart that you may be born poor but you do not have to stay poor.
+America 's Credit Union don't charge fees?
There´s a banker saying…it´s important to have and maintain a large stock of unemployed people to keep the wages low and cheap.
Bankers are very nice people, as general rule.
+Douglas A. It would be nice to think that poverty is escapable by anybody, as the corollary would be that those who remain poor are that way by choice or other poor judgment, and thus can be serenely punished by society for their poor judgment.
Some people do escape poverty. Others don't, and still others fall into it, sometimes in ways not of their own doing. Personal character can play a role, but so does random chance. And, of course, there's the question of, even if someone is poor because they exercised poor judgment, is it to their benefit or the benefit of society that they be punished for it indefinitely?
For me, the question is, how do we provide the opportunities for helping people get out of poverty — and avoid making it worse (and more difficult to get out of) as we do so?
+Walter The Tailor It varies with the credit union (vs bank or savings & loan) and with the type of account. For example, looking at the credit union I patronize, there is a "free" checking option.
Of course, there's an initial membership fee, a minimum deposit, and charges if you use the debit card with some retailers, and the ATM card outside of the credit union's network, as well as a charge for check printing, and you don't get some of the bennies from a higher grade account (like free wire transfers). Still, it's a pretty good deal, as long as you don't inadvertently overdraw on the account ($31, with a requirement to get back above $0 in 14 days).
It IS possible to escape poverty.
And then those in authority go out of their way to make it as hard as possible by passing restrictive laws and cutting budgets.
I wonder how many people commenting here actually read the article.
+Sarge Misfit You don't have to buy shares! Credit Union are essentially nonprofit banks, supported by their depositors. There is no membership fees, at least not the one I use, but I think none.
+Al Casey The one I use has a membership fee and an initial minimum deposit. They are not exorbitant (for me), but they are an extra cost.
+Dave Hill AAFCU requires $10 initial savings deposit. That's it, no fees, or anything else. I guess you have to shop CUs as well. I thought they were all pretty much the same. The long and short, for poor people, me falling pretty close to that group, if you or me are dumb-asses it's expensive. If you don't search for the best deal for your situation you pay thru the nose. The only difference is it matters much more to those with limited resources. It's rough to be a poor dumb-ass.
+Al Casey So it's an easy, and obvious, job to canvas the credit unions in your city to find the best deal. Anyone for whom this is inconvenient or non-trivial, or who doesn't have a lot of choices of credit unions in their neighborhood, is just a dumb-ass, too bad, so sad.
(That low balance banking accounts, regardless of the institution, are prone to relatively large NSF feeds if timing or math doesn't quite work out, doesn't encourage going the bank route, either, as the article discusses. It is net more expensive in the long run to go with a bank-less approach, but the fees are taken from money that is in-hand right now, rather than at a potentially more disastrous time.)
Again, proving my point, it's not expensive to be poor, it's expensive to be a dumb-ass. If you don't rely on yourself and depend on the government to take care of you and your financial well being, you will always be poor. Survival of the fittest. Dumb-asses survive only because the government supports them.
+Al Casey _'“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.'_ (http://wist.info/dickens-charles/15595/)
No. I don't think so.
It doesn't matter what you or I think. One day the welfare state will become totally unsustainable. Then there will be a thinning. I've worked since I was 16, and made a good living with moderate intelligence and one good hand. I have NO sympathy for lazy blood suckers that will not make even a little effort to conserve money that they make or are given.
+Al Casey proving the point of what I wrote above. You obviously did not read the article. But thanks for coming here to preach to us Internet Crusader. I feel saved.
+Al Casey The day the "welfare state becomes totally unsustainable," I fear any thinning will not be amongst the herd you expect.
And I, for one, have "NO sympathy" for folk who assume the chronically poor are "lazy blood suckers," or that all they need to do to lift themselves up out of poverty is a willingness to work and "moderate intelligence."
Country folks can survive!
They definitely have the willingness to work +Dave Hill . Its the effin leaders of the country who keep putting up barriers in the form of legislation and budget cuts to programs, all the time niggling and nibbling away at all those things that can and do help people to get a fair opportunity.
And, of course, the corporations love things as they are since they are the ones who get the tax cuts that end up in those budget cuts. They just love the current balance of supply versus demand when it comes to workers. A A demand that the corporations continue to reduce through outsourcing.
+Sarge Misfit Which seems like a very narrow-minded and short-sighted approach, as the aggregate demand from an impoverished population is pretty darned low, and demand for good drives economic growth and, thus, profits.
Exactly. And when has any corporation shown anything but short-term thinking? It comes from their own goals. Maximize profits. Everything that every corporation does is oriented around that one goal.
+Sarge Misfit Once upon a time, corporations took a longer view. Changes in the business climate, in shareholder expectations, in any number of things since the 70s/80s, have led to a focus purely on a year-by-year, even quarter-by-quarter earning expectation as the primary driver of all business (with the threat of shareholder lawsuit if those numbers are missed through actions by the company).
Corporations are not only out to maximize profits due to greed, but are compelled to do so by shareholders, with the weight of the legal system behind them.
Actually it's a myth. Are corporations bad about short term focus yes, buy they HAVE to have a long term outlook for any kind of payoff/sustainability. Most actually do.