Of course in reality these schemes are traps to get poor people to overspend, but the issue is not that they are physically unable to buy long lasting items, but that the system is constantly trying to trick them in to failing.
When they are available, it is never really for things like shoes or the specialty-sized bra you really need that they do not sell at Wal-mart or a non-specialty store (I spent over $100 for my last one, and had to order in the US or wear something that didn't fit).
Instead, they'll lease you furniture, refrigerators, and stoves with the promise that you'll own it some day (and honestly, for washer/dryers, this might be the intelligent choice as it is cheaper than the pay laundry if you have a family). They'll give you a car loan for a bad car, too.
Buy now pay later schemes aren't even worth it if you are financially insecure: I'd have never done this with my ex, for example, even if I knew that on paper, we might have the money. My ex, you see, is my ex for a reason, and part of that reason was money simply going missing, sometimes meaning that I couldn't buy more food or be afraid of running out of gas. Poverty - on paper - is like this.
They are absolutely a trap but if you were financially smart, you could use them to your advantage to overcome the initial investment vs lifetime cost problem.
The issue is not so much that these people have no options, but that they do not have the knowledge to pull them out of the endless traps that get marketed to them.
The problem is that when you are strapped for cash your freedom of action is limited and it is hard to be financially smart due to the stress.
You not only get your boots discounted and/or bundled with some other offer, there's a fair chance you don't have to pay for them at all.
I've been on both sides, and the differences are a real eye-opener.
I do agree that it is a better scenario than having to always buy the lesser quality item, but you still are paying the 'poverty tax'
There it is. Barely hidden by more advanced financing.