Do we have data on how much free time and external costs the poor have been burdened with over time?
I could see it going either way (and this is presumably monstrously tricky to account fairly). My lived experience is that many folks have things they’d prefer to do than organizing (I’m looking at phones and social media), over and above the impositions on their lives. But I’d like to know that I’m wrong.
Not exactly the tweet, but dropping this again here because of the title.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. … 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. … But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes ‘Boots’ theory of socio-economic unfairness.
This might not apply anymore though since it seems capitalism found out about it and companies realized they could make the $50 boots as trash as the $10 boots and the rich wouldn’t think twice about throwing them out at the same rate so the two options now are spending $10 a year or $50 a year on boots.
A tough lesson I learned when I got worked my way into the middle class was that all the “expensive version that will last you” items are a thing of the past.
Its ultimately the lack of economic flexibility.
When us poors run into trouble, we have to deal with it immediately, without a chance to plan for it or save up for it or make other arrangements, so we have to buy the cheap boots, because we don’t have the financial buffer to absorb the impact of the 50 dollar boots on our budgets, even knowing it will save us money in the long run, because we’re living so threadbare that money is stretched to the limit.
Waiting for buses and other public transport especially. In college I had no car and continued working a part time job that I previously borrowed my parents’ car to commute to. My options were: spending an hour and a half to commute taking a bus with a reasonable schedule but I’d have to walk over a mile alongside a busy road to my job, or spend three hours to commute due to how two route schedules matched up to drop me off at the entrance to the shopping center.
Each of those options was one way, and this was before smart phones. I wasn’t getting anything done in that time besides listening to music and maybe reading a book while on the bus itself.
And then I learned that on Saturdays, over half the time the bus just didn’t fucking show up at the stop where I got on, and the support phone line would just fucking lie about it.
Plus, if I had a vehicle, the commute would have been only 20 minutes in bad traffic.
Will say, the regular distance power walking helped keep me in great shape though.
I wonder how infrastructure would change if companies were required to reimburse valid claims of mileage or time spent (not the bus/train fare, but paying your wage for the time spent to get to work).
This could be a fantastic idea, and maybe a hammer blow to the “return to office” bullshit.
Sure, I’ll go into the office. Pay me 25% more to account for the travel time.
deleted by creator
While the intent is good, as written it would probably have the unintended consequence of making it harder to get a job if you happen to live far away from the workplace, which I don’t think is the way to go
I knew as I wrote it that it would be far more complex than just setting a single law down. But the fact that such cost of time and money just to get to work exists suggests the burden isn’t balanced well. The case you mention of distance to a job is more a symptom of the problem of not being more localized for everything. Not just an American problem, but definitely something we deal with outside of a few major urban areas. A pay adjustment doesn’t fix that, it just is a rough patch that wouldn’t work for some.
In all honesty I think it’s connected to the housing crisis bleeding into basically every other political issue, because of how damn massive of a problem it is
According to a video I’ve seen, actors get paid for their commutes
Only outside the TMZ, which is why basically everything in LA is filmed within it.
An interesting little quirk for sure
I had a job 2.5 miles from my apartment. There is a bus stop on the corner of my apartment, there is a bus stop next to the job. According to the website it was 3 hours to commute by bus to get there…
I wouldn’t be surprised if that bus included connections to other lines on top of it all.
I had to commute by bus for a while. The transfer is where my anxiety peaked. Being miles away from home and hoping not to miss a second bus just to make it to work on time meant my brain was on high alert the whole time.
Bus transfers are the worst… In my city, we have a pretty good network of busses … IF your goal is the city center. All the routes just do a spiderweb towards the center. You’re on your own if you needed to go between neighborhoods.
Bicycle? Others take dedicated time to do workouts. This is basically the perfect distance for a short workout (and time in between commuting is also basically optimal for recovery according to research). Keeps you fit and healthy without thinking about doing more sport (which is still a good idea). I’m even faster on that kind of distance than a car.
I could never drive the bus/train, commuting by bicycle is too fun and way more flexible (even than a car, considering less options for driving and parking). The distance would have to be larger than 20 miles (or non-“freedom” units: 32 km) that I would consider something else…
2.5 miles is thankfully about 15 minutes by bike - less if you’re pushing it or running an ebike
I actually considered getting an ebike once to get to work, but then started mapping out a good route to take and realized the infrastructure isn’t designed for that kind of travel. Bonus, it would be at night, so statistically someone in a car would be a threat to me eventually, because bike lanes are a joke.
I don’t know your distance for commuting. But I consider the bicycle the most superior form of commuting for distances below 10 miles(16km) (personally would even cycle more than double that).
It’s even cheaper, keeps you healthy and often is even faster than a car, considering parking, traffic lights/jams etc… I also enjoy doing that so another advantage.
Depends on geography
In a more mountine town ive lived in with a bike you can be very fast downslope
Upslope?
20 min for 2km and you will be sweaty as hell at the end
10 and sweaty as hell if you are fit
Yeah plus most jobs don’t like you showing up dripping and smelling like a varsity locker room.
My locale even tried to build in employee showers to encourage bike commuting, but it hits 110⁰F outside and there’s not a cloud in the sky, like LOL dudes you gotta be kidding.
I’d love to live in a place where the humble bicycle was viable beyond recreation.
I can recommend a cooling west for these cases. They are quite effective on the bicycle (moving air enhances the effect). I usually don’t care much about a little bit of sweat, I just turn the ventilation on max then at my office. We even have a shower, but never used it… I think sweat is overrated and often an excuse to not cycle…
Ive run into this too. How many times Id just walk to work for the 1.5hours instead of taking the bus that took just as long, but would drop me off at work either 2hours early, or 15mins late. so Id just walk it.
It was glorious the day I finally got a bike.
You know what’s also wild?
Paying Elon Musk for a blue checkmark.
Giving No Kings vibes.
Same with being disabled, growing up I thought disabled people just got helped by everyone in society with everything. Turns out most of the time it’s “do what you were doing before except harder.”
Or if you’re too mentally ill and in so much pain that working is hard but society deems you worthless
The secret is to already have a job that doesn’t notice you’re not working
Is it hard to get a job in the Canadian Senate?
Capitalism deems them unexploitable, they still have worth in society
<3
Being poor is super expensive. When you don’t have enough money in your bank account they’ll charge you a monthly fee. When you’re too poor to have an account, you have to go to a check cashing place and pay to get paid. Too poor to have awesome credit? You have to pay higher interest fees and larger deposits.
When you’re too poor to have an account, you have to go to a check cashing place and pay to get paid.
Use that check to open a bank account. Virtually every bank will give you a free account if you deposit your paycheck with them.
That’s not true if you have bad enough credit or are a migrant worker. There’s an entire check cashing industry based on taking advantage of people who can’t get bank accounts and charging outrageous fees.
That’s not true if you have bad enough credit
Many banks specifically offer services to people with bad credit and bad banking histories. Here is a Forbes article about them with a list of ones they recommend. And another article if you aren’t convinced.
There’s an entire check cashing industry based on taking advantage of people who can’t get bank accounts and charging outrageous fees.
There is an industry around this because people keep spreading misinformation about not being able to get a bank account if you have bad credit; resulting in people not looking into getting a bank account. Stop spreading misinformation, it hurts people.
I’ve never understood check cashing places.
I thought people only went to them because they didn’t want to wait for checks to clear, or they didn’t want a paper trail on a checking account, because it would get automatically garnished for child support.
Are you saying that someone could actually be so poor that a bank will refuse them from opening a checking account? What risk is there to the bank if it goes empty?
Are you saying that someone could actually be so poor that a bank will refuse them from opening a checking account?
If you really don’t have any money other than your paycheck, you can open that bank account…with the check you need to deposit. Virtually every bank will give you a free account if you deposit your paycheck with them.
A bank account is something everyone can have. This idea you can be too poor for a bank account is a myth.
Ive cashed paychecks at one point using these placss. I dont think I had a bank account at the time. To open an account you have to deposit money. I couldnt afford to just leave money in an account in any given week, so I didnt have one. So I used to cash them at Stop n Shop, a grocery store. They would do it for a small fee. Then one day, they said they wouldnt cash my checks anymore, because my credit was bad? It made no sense to me at the time.
So for about a year, I used the local sketch ball check cashing place. I think they took 8% or something. Later in life, there was a time I just cashed them at walmart. Damn, there was a time in my life I was too broke to have a bank account. oye.
One thing is financial literacy.
A lot of people come from a cycle of poverty where no one around them can explain why it’s a good idea to have a bank account.
Also, there are predatory banks that demand minimum amounts to start any account. If you don’t have $200.00 to start an account it’s hard to start an account.
Back in the day, banks encouraged little kids to start bank accounts with just a few dollars. I had a bank book when I was 12. Those days are long gone. I went to Bank of America with a check from a BOA account and they wanted to charge me. I could wait to get to my own bank, but other folks wouldn’t have that option.
We also used to have a 70% wealth tax in those “good ol days” pre Reagan
Reagan was a good family man who believed in small town values and honesty.
He threw away his wife for a bimbo after moving to Hollywood.
I understand your comment to be snark. From what I remember:
Reagan was a commie scare guy who blacklisted his enemies in the screenactors guild if they didnt share his conservative viewpoint.
Reaganomics was flatly stupid or a con job, take your pick-- just tax cuts for the rich that were supposed to trickle down and never did, and massive swathes of dergulation, including environmental rules. His deregulation of the banking industry caused the savings and loan crisis that cost a lot of people their life savings, and destroyed the US economy for a good long time and caused a recession.
Iran Contra happened on his watch (although he claims he knew nothing about it). The CIA were literally flying pallets of cocaine into florida air force bases on private cargo planes and selling them on our streets to make money. I find it hard to beleive that a single lowly colonel could have run all of it, using the presidents CIA.
He was a bad B-list actor. His movies sucked really bad, even back then.
He was reportedly a closetted bisexual (with Howard cook before he was married) whose shame steered him to slow walk AIDs treatments for 6 years while his surgeon general screamed for him to allow it, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands who needed treatment during an explosion of AIDS.
The only good thing about him was that he wasnt under AIPAC’s thumb. But he still gets an F on policy and basic decency, although republicans and dems both adored his grandfather-leader BS act. The man was a complete idiot, as are his followers.
Oliver North 'American Dad"
never seen that one, pretty good!
Credit Unions for example require a share purchase usually so while it’s usually quite small some people can’t afford to loose even $5.
Sometimes it’s also debt, guy owes his normal bank a fuckload of money so uses the cash checking to cash his check, he might lose a bit in fees but it’s probably less than what the bank would of taken. I’ve seen alot of contractors in this situation.
can’t afford to loose even $5.
Is that what they mean when they say money’s tight?
They don’t want to risk people overdrafting and just changing banks.
Then don’t give them overdraft? I bet a lot of them don’t even want it and would rather it just reject any payments that would put it in the negative because they charge extra for using overdraft, too.
You don’t understand. They WANT to de-bank poor people.
Nah I understand, showing some problem has a simple solution that gets ignored shows that that problem isn’t the real problem.
Banks have a separate system, like the credit rating system, they use just for depositors. Credit scores reflect the risk to lend money to you. But the banks keep other scores and lists of depositors. Too many overdrafts or transactions their AI considers suspicious? You can be blacklisted from opening an account at any bank.
There’s not a high risk of making much money off then, so it’s considered a waste of time and resources
This is what I point out whenever someone tries to tell me, “The only fair thing in life is everyone gets 24 hours in a day.”
That doesn’t mean shit when someone with a private jet can be on a different continent in hours.
“We all have the same 24 hours in a day”
I fucking hate that saying so much. I’ve started telling people just because you and everyone else at the marathon might have the same 23 miles to go, when 9/10 of you are shackled to a heavy steel ball, and at least half are dragging 2 or 3, then that distance means fuck all.
A marathon isn’t that hard. Just buy a car!
I like to use a private jet. I can be so much more productive!
Someone to prepare your meals and do your shopping and run your kids around. All of these things take time that adds up in a week.
Literally why wealthy people pay exorbitant amounts of money to save time. It’s one thing they can’t buy back once it’s spent.
The time theft has a far reach. I’ve worked with kids who’ve gone inpatient for mental health, acting out in school, etc. Why? Because mom isn’t there. It’s not willful neglect. It’s neglect through not neglecting her motherly duties by working 2-3 jobs to keep the lights on and shoes on her child’s feet.
Time is a key reason we need to be paid more, have a much higher minimum wage, though it isn’t often mentioned.
That’s it right there. The politicians are always rambling “We need jobs.”
No. We need money, which might come from decent jobs.
“Jobs for jobs’ sake” is how we have mental health crises from countless practically-parentless households because everybody’s desperately, constantly working in needlessly stressful conditions.
Jobs are why most of us have no meaningful connections shortly after our highest level of schooling, because everyone’s on wacky schedules and has no time for anyone but the shallowest relationships with whomever they happen to be stuck working with.
Jobs gave us broken homes and skyrocketing suicide rates.
Jobs can shove right off, for all they’ve taken from us, and our “bosses” can be sunk into the deep right along with 'em.
I was fortunate. We were considered poor but not so poor that mom wasn’t home with us. Thrift clothes and homemade clothes (a very cheap option in the 80s) got us teased mercilessly, but the parents were present.
There have been articles lately about the young generations aging faster. It’s always been noteworthy in medicine. People, on the worst case scenarios, looking 60 when they’re 40. Not from outdoor life but just hard life. Given the overt stress the younger gen’s are under on all sides it fits.
Minimum wage isn’t going to cut it anymore. We need UBI.
Democracy is the idea that political authority is derived from the people. The government’s power to levy taxes and conduct its business is taken from We The People; We The People should be fairly compensated for the use of that power. We should each be paid a citizenship dividend of 75% of the current poverty level, before we put a single hour on the clock.
Below current poverty levels? We’ve already got the technology to provide for everyone according to their needs.
Current Poverty line for a single person is $16000. $12000 is 75% of the current single-person household. $12,000/yr, free and clear, before you leave for work on Monday morning. You’re above the poverty line by noon on Monday.
You and your partner are both receiving the same UBI. Together, you’re receiving $24000/yr. That’s 110% of the current poverty rate for a household of two. You’re above the line just from your UBI.
For you, your partner, and your two kids, that’s $48000/yr. That’s 145% of the poverty line for a household of 4.
Does that still seem unreasonable? I’d be ecstatic over 25%.
That still feels awfully low.
Even getting a single dollar each year would be nicer than the zero I get now, but I’d rather get fully reimbursed for letting people monopolize my share of the earth. They have no right to claim that for themselves in the first place.
If UBI was intended to be the single, primary source of income, I’d agree that it is too low. But it isn’t. The economic purpose is, basically, to remove human need and desperation from contract negotiations and labor agreements.
It’s easy to exploit a drowning man. UBI is intended to keep your head above water, so you can always afford to walk away from a shitty boss.
Why should they have to work for somebody else if they don’t want to? If I’m single and looking at getting paid below the poverty level, then my head is not above water.
We’re the rightful landlords, getting paid less than the sum of all rents.
Who said anything about working for someone else? You’re free to conduct your own affairs in any manner you want to. I, personally, want to see that you are compensated for the use of your political authority in our democratic system of government. You don’t have to accept that compensation. If you really want nothing to do with any sort of democratic society, you’re free to withdraw from it entirely.
But that’s pretty much the extent of my interest. You acquire your political power by virtue of being human; the most you are “owed” for the government’s use of your political power is that which you need to continue being a human. (Technically, you are owed less: You already receive the benefits of law and order that arise from the government’s use of your political powers. The monetary value of the rule of law could be deducted from your “citizenship dividend” and it would still be fair and reasonable.)
UBI does not replace work. It removes the exploitative factors from work. It enables you to take on the risk of working for yourself. Today, you might need 20 hours of wages a week just to live, and you can only devote another 20 hours a week toward your preferred project before you are considered “overworked”. With UBI, your “just to live” hours are zero, and you get to devote all your time to your preferred project. That might be gainful employment; that might be charitable work; that might be artistry or writing; that might be gooning 16 hours a day and playing CoD all night.
This “rightful landlords” stuff you’re talking about might arise from some other economic system, but not from a “citizenship dividend”. Not from “UBI”. You are “made whole” for the conveyance of your political powers as a human when your essential human needs are minimally met; that’s all UBI is for.
What you seem to be describing is more like society claiming “eminent domain” over all land, taxing everyone who uses the land, and paying that tax out to everyone. In which case, yes, you’ll receive something for everyone else’s land use. But you’ll also owe something for your own land use. You’ll owe a lot of money on the valuable residential land where you lay your head. You’ll receive a pittance on the cheap agricultural and industrial land used to feed and clothe you. The net flow of money will be opposite the way you think it will be: The farmer and the industrialist will be receiving more than they are paying, for utilizing land that is useless to the overwhelming majority. (Commercialists will pay more than you, though…Commercial land is vastly higher value than residential, which is more valuable than industrial, which is much more valuable than agricultural, which is more valuable than mining lands)
The other thing is how expensive being poor is. Laundry is like 3 dollars a load last I checked. Buy cheap shoes, expect them to last 6 months max. There are food options if you have time to cook but combined with the original poster you won’t and you don’t have transportation so delivery is only option…
$3 a load? Whoa.
It takes about $17 for a single load at the laundromats near me, both washing and drying. Going once a week, that’s over $800 a year.
Which is one reason I’ve started washing clothes in a 5-gallon (about 19 liters) bucket at home. It sucks, but it saves me money and I get a work out from it. I’d like to get a small machine I could use in an apartment, but where I live it wouldn’t be safe to have packages sitting outside all day and I try to avoid big box stores, so I feel pretty screwed.
wringing out clothes from a tub is absolutley the first thing I did that lead the my carpal tunnel.
You might want to look into “portable washing machines” - they’re under 100$ comes in a small box and are good for things like socks and undies. Regarding the packages, if they are shipping with ups, theres a service where you can choose an alternative delivery location, usually a place like a corner store, or with fedex, a print shop.
when youre talking to poor people, $100 isnt chump change. Im glad these things exsist now. 20 years ago I could have used one.
Wtf 17 dollars? The laundry mats around me are like 3 dollars to wash and free dry.
Is there an Amazon Locker near you? Those are pretty handy for safe package holding.
I’ve known people to be on hold for 6-8 hours for multiple days with the local food stamp office without being able to get in touch with anyone. At one point the automatic message when you called was ‘too many people are calling, hang up.’
For the laundry stuff, this is a cheap solution for your day to day stuff: a washer spinner that you connect to a faucet to wash, spin water out, then hang-dry your clothes. Doesn’t help much with heavy stuff like bed sheets, but it’ll do for day-to-day stuff.
Poverty is more expensive than anything any millionaire or billionaire could buy. Fuck the rich.
The biggest punishment you could enact on those monsters is to knock them all the way down to working class.
They couldn’t cut it in the real world, with a real job. They’d lose their mind having to respect anyone else.
Who knows, it could even possibly reform them.
Fun napkin math fact: If we divvied up the top… 5 wealthiest billionaires net worth… that’d get every living man, woman, and child on earth a cool $250 ish.
Sure - its not very much but it certainly does make you think. What if…
No one human should have the wealth of nations let alone the wealth of one nation. Its not the money that is the issue its the power that comes with it.
The two are tightly intertwined. Money is a powerful force multiplier. People are fundamentally still the same as we were 1000s of years ago. The same instincts that served us well then are our greatest weakness today.
When looking at relatively new and abstract societal expectations now… its not particularly shocking that the norm tends to be weighted towards short sighted individualism. We’re just wired that way. I’m not excusing it: ita humanities greatest flaw. We just need to acknowledge these flaws and plan accordingly.
The idea of wealth redistribution is in stripping power from the very rich. If you are rich, you influence politics in a way that benefits you by not caring about others.
The problem with Bill Gates’ poly vaccine in Africa is not in the fact that it didn’t save children, in fact it did. The problem is that measles takes more children’s lives in Africa by an order of magnitude and measles vaccination would’ve saved much more.
Now add to the picture the recent decisions: internet surveillance (age verification), ignoring the Paris agreement, data centers built everywhere. I guess a lot of people would oppose these, but their voices are not heard.
I mentioned this a moment ago as a different reply but your observations are all examples of a feedback loop perpetuating itself. Its certainly correctable. This isnt the first time it happened nor will it be the last. Its a product of some of the uglier parts of the human condition.
Absolute power corrupts - and those in power will not only seek to keep that power bit increase it. They consolidate it. Less people with power: less opposition. But this has diminishing returns… and has reset trap baked in. How? Numbers. Power moves people. As you concentrate power - you have less people to move and more people opposing that movement.
1 billionaire, 8 billion people. What do you do to maintain that power? Surveillance. Draconian rules. Control the narrative and paint yourself as necessary. The power dynamic is reaching a tipping point. Unrelated: I recall there seems to be an uptick in bunkers being built by the ultra wealthy. Puzzling.
Sound familiar? It should. History is littered with example after example.
The system breaks in the same way - every time. These aren’t deitites - they aren’t special. They are just another meat bag running on 80% lizard-brain firmware that is purely focused on ITS survival alone. In the end these twats engineer their own destruction. Now, while the all for one trait certainly is consistent in its consolidation of power: it still consistently maintains its loss record to the group. I’d like to think of that as an immune response to a foreign entity. In a weird way that sorta gives me hope.
And that’s not at lot…for people in the US, like a month of groceries for 2 adults. Not touching other actual bills.
But in developing countries, $250 could rival a large percentage of their monthly wages.
250 USD is in my country about a daily wage of high-level specialist, I mean - top 5% of people who live from working.
63 USD is a minimal daily wage in my poor country.
Where do you live? Because your “poor” country’s minimal daily wage is more than the daily wage of someone on the US federal minimum wage (e.g., $7.25 x 8 hrs = $58)
Poland.
We are 9th european country by size and GDP, formerly part of Soviet Republics. We have smaller military, smaller economy, smaller population than USA etc. In fact I think our entire economy barely rivals some of the states inside USA. Our older generations (those who lived under communism) see USA as a shiny utopia where nobody is ever poor or unhappy, which caused several our post-soviet generations to emigrate as far west as they could.
Money and value are interesting topics. Many of the oddities surrounding expense vs need exist as a result of scales being unfairly influenced. Billionaires aren’t the root of the problem - they are the symptom of the problem. If billionaires didnt exist: that would likely be because wages, costs, and services are more fairly balanced. Less disparity - less resources to leverage to create it… and likely a much higher cost to apply that leverage. We are simply in a feedback loop in a sick system. Cancer doesn’t just go away with thoughts and prayers.
Many workers get paid the equivalent of $120 a month or lower
In Zambia, average monthly wage is 130$.
Why not divide up ALL of their wealth?
Most of that would be in stocks you can’t sell at once or they immediately lose value.
While yes, my napkin math may have simplified things to produce a workable ish value:
The numbers purpose was to provide perspective - which I feel worked reasonably well.
The SiFi movie “In Time” staring Justin Timberlake is meh quality wise, but the premise is really interesting… That the currency of that universe is the time someone has left to live. They do an interesting job playing with how wealth inequality changes behavior of people with and without time to spare
It’s a good movie, it just could have been done way better.
