# Financial disacuity
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share
**Created:** [December 22, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949 "2014-12-22T20:10:44Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 27
### Author:  [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/521 "2015-01-08T13:08:40Z")
Oh, yeah, it’s amazing Europe still exists at all, what with all its business unfriendly and poor friendly laws.
But given the subject matter, the hijack was still pretty inevitable.
---
### Author:  [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/522 "2015-01-08T13:14:38Z")
> [@Waymore](#):
>
> Alcohol and tobacco aren’t illegal.
They are, however, just as damaging to their addicts as crack or heroin.
If someone is so poor as to require food stamps how the hell are they affording cigarettes and booze? Neither of those items are cheap, where’s the money coming from? I could see someone getting a gift of an occasional six pack or bartering for a fifth, but the cost of supporting a cigarette habit is frighting in this context.
The other problem, as I said, is that addiction doesn’t have a quick fix. Even if someone is kicking the habit they need to eat in the meanwhile.
> [@](#):
>
> Because there’s a difference between earning money and being given money. I’m not saying it’s cool for government employees to be on drugs. But the statistician that works for the Census Bureau and the guys who pick up trash for the city are in a different category than somebody who receives benefits, even if the money ultimately comes from tax payers.
Uh-huh.
I still say any politician proposing drug testing for someone else should be the first to offer up a cup of piss for testing. Don’t impose restrictions on others you aren’t willing to suffer yourself.
> [@](#):
>
> Plus, passing a drug test is a must for pretty much any job. Lots of places test employees regularly. If somebody has drug issues such that it interferes with their ability to hold a job, they suffer negative consequences.
OK - they’re so effed up they can’t hold a job. They still have to eat, don’t they? How do you think they go about obtaining food in such circumstances?
> [@](#):
>
> So, being sober, or at least able to consume while still being productive, is part of the employment culture in the US. Only makes sense that we would encourage those who are having a tough time financially to be part of the same culture.
Except there is a definite classist angle to that culture. The higher up the income ladder you are the less likely you are to be subjected to drug testing as part of your job. That’s a double standard all up and down the economic ladder. The CEO should piss in a cup as often as the mail clerk, maybe more often given he has so much more responsibility. That’s not what happens. Somehow the higher ups are always given a pass.
Actually, some companies that used to test regularly have stopped doing that. They weren’t really catching any problem people before accidents occurred and the testing was expensive over time. It just wasn’t cost-effective.
> [@Crafter\_Man](#):
>
> These threads always turn out the same: the apologists for the poor & downtrodden versus those who have the nerve to expect a certain amount of personal responsibility from people. The solution from the former is always the same: _a new/better government program!_ :rolleyes:
Nope, I want to reform the programs we already have. Is that such a bad thing? I want the social safety net constructed so it actually encourages positive actions rather than providing perverse incentives.
---
### Author:  [@Dangerosa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dangerosa)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/523 "2015-01-08T14:03:20Z")
> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> Yes, I agree the Vuitton stuff is almost always fake. Other stuff isn’t. Coach, in particular, seem to last forever if they’re given any care at all and I think a lot get tossed/donated from the estates of little old ladies when their heirs don’t recognize the value of what they have.
Coach isn’t even in the same league - you are comparing $300 purses to $1300 (and up) purses. Yes, you can find Coach, sometimes, in a thrift store. Rarely. If anyone is wearing designer clothes and carrying Coach purses that they’ve gotten from thrift (not consignment) stores, they are spending a lot of TIME in thrift stores competing with the eBayers-for-profit who grab that stuff the moment it hits the floor. And at that point you start asking yourself if their decisions on spending time are wise if you are poor - because the point has been made that time is one of those commodities that needs to be managed carefully and is part of the reason poor people are poor.
(Consignment is a whole different deal, there are some really nice consignment places specializing in designer, but you aren’t finding a Coach purse for $20 there either).
People who are wealthy enough for Gucci, Prada and LV don’t die in a vacuum and have heirs who just give things to Goodwill - or not often. Their heirs come in and have the estate appraised by someone reputable. Grandma’s jewelry all needs to be appraised - her art, and along with it, her furniture, dishes, and clothing. If we are talking about the difference between the poor and the wealthy - this is a huge one - intergenerational wealth. And if we are talking about how the wealthy get and stay wealthy - not giving Grandma’s Birkin to Goodwill or selling her jewelry off as junk is part of it.
In fact, brand awareness is one of those things where this whole awareness of money plays out. It is very important to present as middle class for the poor - so often people choose to spend more money on brands than fits into their budget (and present as “comfortable” for the middle class.) Sometimes this is a good investment - having a great interview outfit (or for whatever other purpose you need to dress to impress) is a good investment. However, I’ve worked with plenty of people over the years that can’t get ahead, but spend a lot of money dressing designer and carrying designer handbags (like Coach) - of which they have several. This isn’t a poor people thing - its a people who are bad with money thing. If you can afford a Burberry coat, they are really cute - the Burberry web site is a favorite of mine to dream on. If you buy a Burberry coat and then wonder how you are going to pay your rent at the end of the month - you may be a recent college graduate with the financial awareness of a cat busy digging yourself a hole that is going to be really hard to get out of.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/524 "2015-01-08T14:47:04Z")
> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> You’re missing the forest for the trees.
>
> The point is not individual taxes, the point is _we all benefit form government programs and services_. All of us. Why distinguish poor people as having extra conditions and restrictions irrelevant to the aim of the program except that you’re treating poverty as something to be punished and the poor as lesser citizens?
Yes, rich, middle class, and poor alike, we all benefit from government programs. The tich and middle class pay for those benefits, plus more so the government can subsidize the poor, who do not pay for their benefits.
We ask poor people to spend the money they are given wisely and economically. If the poor waste the money on luxuries like restaurant meals, that behavior is foolish and should change. Blaming the behavior on bogus notions like food deserts, or lame excuses like “I’m too tired to cook my own meals and too uneducated to know that vegetables are cheaper than McD french fries and I can’t bear to teach my children to eat something other than tater tots” sounds more than faintly ridiculous. Especially to people who manage to feed their families and teach their children to eat their veggies and yet work full time year round (most poor households do not have a full time year round worker, and [most poor people do not work](http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full-time-minimum-wage-worker)).
[QUOTE=Crafter\_Man]
These threads always turn out the same: the apologists for the poor & downtrodden versus those who have the nerve to expect a certain amount of personal responsibility from people.
[/QUOTE]
Word.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/525 "2015-01-08T15:42:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Especially to people who manage to feed their families and teach their children to eat their veggies and yet work full time year round (most poor households do not have a full time year round worker, and [most poor people do not work](http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-annual-earnings-full-time-minimum-wage-worker)).
Is that because most poor people are children? Serious question. What percentage of poor adults work or are actively seeking work?
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/526 "2015-01-08T15:59:49Z")
> [@Spice\_Weasel](#):
>
> What percentage of poor adults work or are actively seeking work?
I don’t have immediate figures on seeking work.
By definition, a household has at least one adult. About three quarters of poor households do not have a full time, year round worker. About 3% of adults who work full time year round are poor. ([Cite](http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-poverty-rates-among-working-adults).) [Of those over 16 living in poverty, two-thirds did not work, and less than one in 10 worked full-time year-round.](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents)
Most poor adults do not work full time. Most full time workers are not poor.
The notion that poor people drag themselves home exhausted from working two or three jobs **is not typically true**.
> [@](#):
>
> Is that because most poor people are children?
No, the reason that most poor households do not have a full time worker is not because of the proportion of children among the poor.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/527 "2015-01-08T17:01:28Z")
**Shodan** , I think that website is using the federal poverty level guidelines to define who is in poverty and who isn’t, and if that’s so then your equivalence between “in poverty” and “poor” doesn’t hold. Plenty of people who are by all sensible measures _poor_ nevertheless earn income over the _federal poverty guideline_.
I’m a borderline case myself, seeing as how I qualify (and take advantage of, natch) two federal programs for, basically, poor people. (WIC and state-administered-federally-funded Medicaid for my kids)–yet I do not fall below the poverty guideline.
I manage my money well (now) and culturally my family fits right in with the educated middle class but by many measures on paper, we sure look poor.
---
### Author:  [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/528 "2015-01-08T17:19:18Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> **Shodan** , I think that website is using the federal poverty level guidelines to define who is in poverty and who isn’t, and if that’s so then your equivalence between “in poverty” and “poor” doesn’t hold. Plenty of people who are by all sensible measures _poor_ nevertheless earn income over the _federal poverty guideline_.
Seconded. I suspect many don’t know just how low the federal poverty level is. [Take a look.](http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-864p.pdf) I know our 2-person household in Chicago would have a hell of a time making it without help on a shade over $15k/year.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/529 "2015-01-08T17:34:45Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> **Shodan** , I think that website is using the federal poverty level guidelines to define who is in poverty and who isn’t, and if that’s so then your equivalence between “in poverty” and “poor” doesn’t hold. Plenty of people who are by all sensible measures _poor_ nevertheless earn income over the _federal poverty guideline_.
How about if we leave those goalposts where they were?
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/530 "2015-01-08T17:41:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> How about if we leave those goalposts where they were?
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
I don’t really understand what you mean. Can you tell me where the goalposts were in the first place, and how this was established? I may have missed something in the conversation. I thought your intention was to talk about poor people. I actually saw _you_ as having (accidentally to be sure) moved the goalposts by referring to cites about people who are in poverty. Those are different concepts.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/531 "2015-01-08T18:05:50Z")
> [@Frylock](#):
>
> I don’t really understand what you mean. Can you tell me where the goalposts were in the first place, and how this was established?
> I may have missed something in the conversation. I thought your intention was to talk about poor people. I actually saw _you_ as having (accidentally to be sure) moved the goalposts by referring to cites about people who are in poverty. Those are different concepts.
What a load of horseshit.
You know perfectly well what I mean, the goal posts are exactly what they were from the first moment I mentioned it, the poverty threshhold is established by the federal government, and there is no difference between being poor and being in poverty.
Feh.
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Amateur\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amateur_Barbarian)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/532 "2015-01-08T18:10:22Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> What a load of horseshit.
>
> You know perfectly well what I mean, the goal posts are exactly what they were from the first moment I mentioned it, the poverty threshhold is established by the federal government, and there is no difference between being poor and being in poverty.
Well, gosh-a-roonie, when you simplify it down to that level, there’s nothing left to argue about.
Except maybe what happened to your horse.
---
### Author:  [@ZPG\_Zealot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZPG_Zealot)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/533 "2015-01-08T18:35:05Z")
> [@Waymore](#):
>
> So, nobody denies that businesses are willing to meet the demands of poor people, at least in some instances.
>
> Therefore, the question that needs to be answered is why is the demand for healthy food any different from the demand from the products listed above?
>
> Any reason you could give for not selling fruits and vegetables in poor neighborhoods would also apply to Popeye’s Chicken or the liquor/check cashing store.
>
> The only sensible conclusion is that _if_ there were demand for healthy food, it would be met.
Actually the only sensible conclusion is that the profit margin for selling health food is not as great as profit margin for selling other products. I’m co-owner of one retail business that lies on the border between blue collar and ghetto neighborhoods. We don’t sell fresh fruit, vegetables, and meat. Partially, because no one in the family has ever had the desire to be in the grocery business, but primarily because the profit to be had selling non-grocery items which do not require special storage or care and can sit on shelves for months is just so much more than it would ever be for selling delicate and difficult to maintain products like fresh groceries.
---
### Author:  [@Eva\_Luna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eva_Luna)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/534 "2015-01-08T18:42:44Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> What a load of horseshit.
>
> You know perfectly well what I mean, the goal posts are exactly what they were from the first moment I mentioned it, the poverty threshhold is established by the federal government, and there is no difference between being poor and being in poverty.
>
> Feh.
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
Seriously? If you were a 2-person household with a $15k annual gross income in a major metro area, you wouldn’t consider yourself poor? I sure would.
---
### Author:  [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/535 "2015-01-08T19:08:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> What a load of horseshit.
>
> You know perfectly well what I mean, the goal posts are exactly what they were from the first moment I mentioned it, the poverty threshhold is established by the federal government, and there is no difference between being poor and being in poverty.
>
> Feh.
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
Not a load of shit, a completely sincere question.
I don’t (didn’t) know perfeclty well what you mean.
You may be right about the goalposts but I don’t know. I think different people are talking about different goalposts, which would mean there’s no such thing as “the” goalposts.
I don’t know how to take your assertion that “there is no difference” between being poor and being in poverty, but it does help clarify that whenever you have said “poor” you have meant “below poverty guidelines,” which is perfectly fine. Please know that others you are talking to will likely not mean that, and may easily fail to understand that you mean that.
Feh yourself. Dial back the aggression please.
---
### Author:  [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/536 "2015-01-08T19:33:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> I don’t have immediate figures on seeking work.
>
> By definition, a household has at least one adult. About three quarters of poor households do not have a full time, year round worker. About 3% of adults who work full time year round are poor. ([Cite](http://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-are-poverty-rates-among-working-adults).) [Of those over 16 living in poverty, two-thirds did not work, and less than one in 10 worked full-time year-round.](http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/02/who-earns-the-minimum-wage-suburban-teenagers-not-single-parents)
>
> Most poor adults do not work full time. Most full time workers are not poor.
Thanks. I appreciate the quality of your citations here.
> [@](#):
>
> No, the reason that most poor households do not have a full time worker is not because of the proportion of children among the poor.
Your snark is neither necessary nor deserved. You said ‘‘most poor people don’t work’’ and I was responding to that statement. Children are, ostensibly, people.
Although, actually, the proportion of children among the poor may very well have to do with whether or not people are holding down full time jobs. I am given to understand that children require a lot of time and energy to raise.
---
### Author:  [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/537 "2015-01-08T20:58:06Z")
> [@ZPG\_Zealot](#):
>
> Actually the only sensible conclusion is that the profit margin for selling health food is not as great as profit margin for selling other products. I’m co-owner of one retail business that lies on the border between blue collar and ghetto neighborhoods. We don’t sell fresh fruit, vegetables, and meat. Partially, because no one in the family has ever had the desire to be in the grocery business, but primarily because the profit to be had selling non-grocery items which do not require special storage or care and can sit on shelves for months is just so much more than it would ever be for selling delicate and difficult to maintain products like fresh groceries.
Then how do you explain the abundance of retailers that sell produce and other such in very poor neighborhoods with a large number of immigrants with different tastes? How would you explain the cite upthread in which the USDA said poor neighborhoods had as many grocerers as others?
A retail location makes money by margin and by volume. The grocery business is a low margin game, but there’s plenty of grocers making money because of volume. Demand drives volume.
Seriously, the idea that there’s legions of poor folk who would give their right arm for a spinach salad but are being denied borders on conspiratorial.
---
### Author:  [@Waymore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waymore)
#### Post date: [January 8, 2015, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/538 "2015-01-08T21:14:48Z")
> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> They are, however, just as damaging to their addicts as crack or heroin.
>
> If someone is so poor as to require food stamps how the hell are they affording cigarettes and booze? Neither of those items are cheap, where’s the money coming from? I could see someone getting a gift of an occasional six pack or bartering for a fifth, but the cost of supporting a cigarette habit is frighting in this context.
>
> The other problem, as I said, is that addiction doesn’t have a quick fix. Even if someone is kicking the habit they need to eat in the meanwhile.
I don’t think benefits should be spent on booze and cigars either. But, if folks are getting those products while on benefits it’s evidence of skewed priorities and a willingness to hustle that should be applied elsewhere.
> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> Uh-huh.
>
> I still say any politician proposing drug testing for someone else should be the first to offer up a cup of piss for testing. Don’t impose restrictions on others you aren’t willing to suffer yourself.
I’ve got no strong position on this.
> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> Ok- they’re so effed up they can’t hold a job. They still have to eat, don’t they? How do you think they go about obtaining food in such circumstances?
Not by encouraging dsyfunction. If people have to choose between following sensible rules or not eating, most will choose the former.
> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> Except there is a definite classist angle to that culture. The higher up the income ladder you are the less likely you are to be subjected to drug testing as part of your job. That’s a double standard all up and down the economic ladder. The CEO should piss in a cup as often as the mail clerk, maybe more often given he has so much more responsibility. That’s not what happens. Somehow the higher ups are always given a pass.
Class envy seems to be oprative here. For good or ill, you have to be sober or use responsibly. Poor folks need to be part of the work culture.
---
### Author:  [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick)
#### Post date: [January 9, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/539 "2015-01-09T01:40:17Z")
> [@Waymore](#):
>
> Not by encouraging dsyfunction. If people have to choose between following sensible rules or not eating, most will choose the former.
Addicts are by definition dysfunctional and often not sensible. I worked at a clinic that treated drug addicts. Drugs addicts are perfectly capable of choosing their high over food. Or water. That’s how crack and meth addicts get so skinny. Alcoholic are infamous for drinking booze instead of eating, leading to all sorts of problems.
If we shouldn’t provide food to addicts on the public dole then we shouldn’t be providing food to a lot of people currently sitting in prison - but that would be regarded as inhumane.
What is the goal here? To feed the hungry? Then being and addict or sober isn’t relevant if the person is hungry.
To punish addicts in an attempt to coerce them into giving up their poison? Then why don’t we lock them up in prison? Because I guarantee you no addict ever gave up their addiction because he or she missed dinner.
> [@](#):
>
> Class envy seems to be oprative here. For good or ill, you have to be sober or use responsibly. Poor folks need to be part of the work culture.
The work culture should not have a double standard. Either everyone gets tested, or no one.
---
### Author:  [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)
#### Post date: [January 9, 2015, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/540 "2015-01-09T02:00:12Z")
> [@Broomstick](#):
>
> The work culture should not have a double standard. Either everyone gets tested, or no one.
Is random drug testing unfair?
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949.md?page=26)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949.md?page=28)