One observation from growing up poor, around lots of other poor people (but not something I noticed in people who I'd classify as falling into "true" poverty) is the crazy amount of money that gets spent on absolute bullshit in some desperate attempt to make the life-suck less awful.
I could list some examples, but the stereotype of poor people with expensive shoes or lots of cheap jewelry or whatever is often partially true.
It's not even about that. It's that being poor is expensive. So, here's an example: when I would buy shoes, which were usually boots (I lived on a farm), you could get a pair at a place like Sears. They were maybe, I dunno, $20-$30 at the time. They would fall apart within a year. Every year, let's say, $30-$60, just on replacing my shoes. Then, one year, I decided to save up _all_ of my money, including gifts, and bought a pair of Doc Martens for $120. Those shoes lasted me for almost a decade, because they were significantly higher quality. $12/year, actually cheaper than the poorer quality boots. But that wouldn't help if I couldn't put the $120 together to actually buy them, which was true most of the time.
A lot of being poor is like this. You can only afford cheap stuff, and cheap stuff breaks a lot and needs to be replaced often. It's expensive to be poor.
This is fairly bullshitty and something I question as to being real. My immigrant family has always bought cheap shit. $30 shoes from DSW or wherever lasted a long time. Our clothes from Sears lasted forever. The expensive stuff wasn't for quality, it was for brand and social signaling. That $800 Gucci purse isn't bought because its durable. There's simply not a price/durability relationship in fashion.
>and bought a pair of Doc Martens
Of course leather boots last longer, that's a serious edge case that has no bearing on the norm. I don't know anyone who regularly wears boots on a daily basis and its unrealistic to pretend its a normal footwear for most people. Heck, most people can't wear shoes that like long term as its uncomfortable and can cause foot issues. Middle class people don't sigh in relief about being able to afford hipster boots, they just buy the same sneakers they always did.
In fact, its pisses me off that at my wealth level how easily shit breaks. My fancier clothing wears out faster, my more complex lifestyle means more handymen and repairs, etc.
>It's expensive to be poor.
Its really not. When we were poor we just didn't buy into the consumerist lifestyle. We just kept stuff forever. The problem is some of the poor people in my neighborhood would buy into it and bought all the blingy shit with their money instead of saving or trying to work their way out of the poor neighborhoods.
I'm glad yours was better than mine.
(Also, again: I lived on a farm. Boots were a much more practical form of footwear than sneakers, though I did, from time-to-time, get sneakers instead. They fell apart even faster.)
Lasted a long time doing what? Doing farm work every day will wear out shoes a lot faster than just walking around in the streets.
> There's simply not a price/durability relationship in fashion.
You need a certain minimum price to get a certain minimum quality, simply for materials expenses. Stuff can't get cheaper than that, even if there's nothing stopping you from slapping a "premium!" sticker on it and selling it for ten times as much as it's worth.
> Of course leather boots last longer
Leather boots can last longer. You can have crappy worksmanship with leather boots too – sure, the leather will last forever, but if it's poorly done, it'll fall apart after a year or five anyway.
It's not just boots, anyway. Computers (Thinkpads and Macbooks last forever, you don't hear anyone saying that about the $200 notebooks off Walmart), appliances (a good washing machine can survive their owner while a cheap won't last 10 years), …
>and bought a pair of Doc Martens Of course leather boots last longer,
Look at this: http://drmartensforlife.com/
Coach (bought my GF a wallet for her birthday once, ~$250) and Gucci have similar policies.
More expensive stuff definitely lasts longer, in general.
> $30 shoes from DSW
These shoes aren't cheap, they are what is called "seconds." They have design flaws. I buy shoes from DSW because they are $300 shoes for $60 because they are missing a stitch. They are still technically $300 shoes...
> Our clothes from Sears lasted forever.
That's fine, but Sears is mid-ranged. If you buy something from Walmart it's going to lose the wear-ability very quickly. Maybe a polo would be fine, but a Jacket, pair of shoes, or pants will not hold up like something a few times more expensive will.
> Middle class people don't sigh in relief about being able to afford hipster boots, they just buy the same sneakers they always did.
Middle class people generally buy $100-$200 Nikes.
> My fancier clothing wears out faster, my more complex lifestyle means more handymen and repairs, etc.
??? What? What are you buying, exactly?
> Its really not. When we were poor we just didn't buy into the consumerist lifestyle. We just kept stuff forever.
Very-cheap end things don't last as well as mid-ranged things do. It's a fact. You won't be buying new TVs, but the consumables you buy suck: watches, jackets, the food, your cars, dishes, forks and knives, computers (for work), so on... which leads to you purchasing them more often.
It doesn't mean the HIGHEST END stuff is much better. You have diminishing returns. But, it's very tempting to buy the CHEAPEST when you are poor.
And with little possibilities to save up money, you'll have to rely much more on credit financing for emergency expenses, which drives up "unnecessary" expenses further.
I was without work a while back: I was near-devastated by a double-whammy parking ticket (total ~$100) I had gotten.
I delivered pizza as a job, and the car that I had to do the job broke down. I couldn't afford the repairs, but I also didn't want to lose my job, so I junked it, and took my savings and managed to find a 12-year old car with 255,000 miles on it for $150. Rural areas have lots of old junkers lying around.... that car lasted a month, until the engine overheated and destroyed itself mid-delivery. Before cellphones, I had to hitchhike back to the shop. But in that month I managed to make a couple of hundred dollars, and buy an okay car that lasted me another year or two...
I am glad that I was lucky enough that my hobby turned into a profession that pays well.
For every think like workboots or tools, there are things like clothing or kitchgoods were quality doesn't save you money.
A bigger issue is just poor longterm thinking. Poor people will buy a six pack of toilet paper for 3 bucks instead of buying 24 for 9. Sometimes it's not even lack of longterm, thinking, they may need that extra six bucks or they'd miss another payment and incur 15 dollar late fees.
And of course impulse control. We all know people who live paycheck to paycheck, but if they got some extra money they'd spend it on absurd shit. Not even stuff like booze, but like schlocky walmart stuff.
I don't blame them, you can't really save your way out of poverty anyway. Might as well YOLO it.
> There is no way rare situations like that really add up to that much savings.
> A bigger issue is just poor longterm thinking.
And most goods aren't like quality workboots. You can a steak knife at walmart for nearly free. Or you buy some expensive one. Sure the later is better, but you'll never have to replace the walmart one. It's not going to break.
You can go buy clothing at goodwill. It's not going to last appreciably longer than new clothes bought at H&M.
And so on, and so on...
It was terrible, threw chains and all kinds of other issues. We tossed it and bought another and then another. All terrible for different reasons, one of which caused me to have a fairly serious accident.
Finally, they went to Sears and bought me a proper youth bike, which lasted until my early teens with nothing more than a couple replacement tubes.
The whole thing cost twice as much as just getting me a decent bike to start with.
It's almost like being poor is some kind of weird edge case our software doesn't handle well and the result is a constant series of poor decisions.
An interesting takeaway was that in Cleveland, conspicuous consumption of premium sodas and cigarettes were far higher than anywhere in the nation. I suppose when you're really that poor, you'll do - or buy - anything to feel that you aren't.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/14/opinion/sunday/what-peo...
Part of the problem of being poor is lack of self-control and lack of planning and how that all culminates into a endless party/bling lifestyle. This is why education is seen as the solution to being poor, not necessarily a lifetime of handouts. Income distribution hits the laws of diminishing returns pretty fast. Some people, unfortunately, can't accept this for political reasons, hence all my drive-by downvotes.
I can't imagine making birth control pills OTC and free of charge would be more expensive in the long run than a steadily increasing line for welfare checks and SNAP benefits.
Edit: if one person can explain why they are downvoting me, I would love to listen. Otherwise I assume you all think I'm shitty because I think birth control should be available to everyone, especially people who aren't ready to have kids.
And then there's the fact that being poor actually impairs IQ.[1] And that hopeless feeling that leads to immediate pleasures over long-term goals. [2]
1 http://www.citylab.com/work/2013/08/how-poverty-taxes-brain/...
2 http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-bra...