In general I feel like there's a tendency to view products marketed at poor people as exploitative. That's sometimes merited (payday loans!) but honestly, dollar stores are really effective at providing a good product at a great price.
That's also a very interesting discussion to have because from what I understand, payday loans businesses exist because the alternative is worse - people who are desperate will always borrow money from someone, so it's better that they borrow from a well regulated business rather than from the "pay or we'll break your legs" kind. And then the 1000% APR is argued that it's the actual cost of risk with these loans since they default so often.
The argument against payday lenders is a paternalistic one with moralistic overtones, with all the potential flaws that might entail.
On the other hand, rent-a-centers are disgusting. I remember when I was a kid I had calculated they wanted me to pay something like $3,000 for a $500 laptop. But the idea is you only need to give them $50 a week. I went and saved my money and found the absolute cheapest laptop I could, paying cash for it.
On a larger level, car loans are also extremely exploitive. No one needs a car which cost more than $20,000, but all these shiny ads show girls will swoon over you, men will respect you, as long as you buy a car which is $75,000 + tax and destination.
My mother-in-law leases a new Toyota Corolla every few years; she gets trouble-free motoring at a reasonable rate.
Myself I have no idea how many miles I am going to drive next year (do I work from home? take the bus? do I drive to Montreal or North Carolina a lot?) so I buy a similar car and drive it into the ground.
Many of those luxury cars are leased, not loaned; the headline number ($/month) looks low compared to a loan on a modest car. You will probably need a lot of warrantee repair (a Toyota and a Cadillac are quality cars in their own estimations, but not in each other’s; if you need your car to start in the morning so you can get to work pick the Toyota.)
In terms of maintenance, I've had some that were troublesome, and some that needed nothing, it's a bit of a lottery in that regard. Most common problems are solvable with a few hours on your back in the garage though.
Possibly most interesting is that the value decay has already taken place at this point. Eg: buy a car for 2k, sell it 5 years later for 1.5k, as opposed to buying it for 80k and selling it two years later for 40k
please explain how the used car market is "slowly recovering" 11 years later.
The $3.5k car is going to need more than $0 a month in repairs; the lease price includes that. If you like fixing your own car, get joy out of a unique car, don’t mind owning three VWs and having one run at any time the clunker can be a win. But if your clunker needs a $200 repair every month you might decide a payment and a reliable car is better for you.
Infotainment systems are in reverse gear but people underestimate the environmental and safety benefits of newer cars. There was that time I rolled my fit. I got lucky, but I didn’t even feel pain and the back window broke out so I even had an easy time getting out with the car wedged in the roadside ditch.
> When I was young I was able to find a $600 apartment, on the free market. Now the same place is 1200$.
The issue is that the overwhelming goal of politicians at all levels is to increase the value of individually owned residential units above the rate of general inflation. This is far and away the most popular form of welfare and impossible for any politician to oppose. It is also diametrically opposed to affordable housing so any and all affordable housing proposals are bound to be ineffective bandaid proposals.
If we want affordable housing the only way to get it is first lower the homeownership rate.
It’s natural that there would be a lot of denial that this can’t go on forever.
For example, the tax deduction incentivizes people getting the biggest house possible to maximize the deduction. It also disproportionately benefits the higher income classes because they are able to afford more expensive homes. So from a perspective of helping more people become home owners it’s bad policy. It’s actually better at helping people who already are in a class that can afford homes just be able to afford more expensive homes. From that angle, it never really “worked”.
But so many people are accustomed to the benefit it’s virtually impossible to roll back.
Literally no one but the rich, or those who like suffering should stay there. It's an absolutely beautiful state, but it's just so hostile to anyone who wants to have a decent life.
Do stores not allow split payments?
Isn't that a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
That doesn't mean they're the same product or quality, however.
If they wanted to do that then they would be better off creating a different lower cost brand, rather than a new manufacturing process for $ store items.
I doubt your toothpaste tube cost more than $0.50 in actual materials to make. And on a store this can go for $3? $4? (from a quick look in Amzn - approx values the cheapest one is $8 for 6)
https://www.amazon.com/Crest-Complete-Whitening-Toothpaste-T...
Amazon is more expensive than Costco/Walmart/Target, but especially so for dense, heavy items like liquids (or toothpaste).
Or if the poor are aware of PPU disadvantages, they have a sense that shopping elsewhere isn't worth spending more time and energy.
So the $DiscountFranchise just needs to be able to locate itself as close as possible to the socioeconomic-target population.