The cost of hand-to-mouth living
ft.com
ft.com
about 11 p.m., customers start to come in and shop, fill their grocery basket with basic items, baby formula, milk, bread, eggs, and continue to shop and mill about the store until midnight, when electronic — government electronic benefits cards get activated and then the checkout starts and occurs. And our sales for those first few hours on the first of the month are substantially and significantly higher. And if you really think about it, the only reason somebody gets out in the middle of the night and buys baby formula is that they need it, and they’ve been waiting for it. Otherwise, we are open 24 hours — come at 5 a.m., come at 7 a.m., come at 10 a.m. But if you are there at midnight, you are there for a reason.
That stuck in my mind. It's a poignant image.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/20/watching-walmart-a...
All of the people I talking about worked full time. They all had ungodly sums come out of their paycheque every two weeks to pay for health insurance (from what I understand it was not a great plan either). I don't really know what kind of point I'm trying to make here. On one hand it's nice that there are a lot of cheap options at WalMart for people on small budgets. On the other hand, it's sad that so many WalMart employees (in my own experience) are the ones who so badly needing to take advantage of those prices.
Edit: there's one big difference, though. To shop at Costco you have to buy twice as much (plus typically pay membership fees). That step could be too steep for the people most living hand-to-mouth, even though it would save them money within weeks. So there could be sample bias here too.
The membership is the per member profit. Costco doesn't mark up items more than 14%. In some states they aren't allowed to require membership to access the pharmacy. If what you proposed was workable, I'd expect groups of people in an area to band together or have a middleman in order to only have one membership and break up bulk items.
(And technically there is such a middleman doing their best to lower prices - they are called Walmart.)
> ... greater purchasing power get access to the lowest cost ...
Same thing happens with the US health system - the uninsured pay the most for exactly the same procedures at the same place. At least in the case of Costco it is economically sensible because buyers purchase a bigger volume and the store has greater throughput. (Costco typically has 4,000 SKUs per store while a normal supermarket will be around 16,000.)
Honest question, I've never heard of such a construction.
See the article Why Can’t Walmart Be More Like Costco?[0] for more on this.
0: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/26/why-can-t-w...
The rest of her argument appears to be "I don't know if that would work for Walmart". Neither do I, but "I don't know" isn't a persuasive argument. :)
Walmart sells 140k skus, sorted on shelves and available in small quantities, and has lots of cashiers so you can get in and out reasonably quickly. Costco sells 4k skus, mostly in bulk, and forces you to wait 20 minutes to leave the store.
The irony is, I was particularly poorly served by the advice I offered here, since skipping straight to Yglesias totally screwed me up.
Sorry about that.
I had no idea that the question Why can't Walmart treat its workers better, since Costco has proved it possible was not only a thing, but mature enough in the lifecycle of thingness for Mcardle to write an entire piece about how much it annoys her. I just arrived at it from observation in the stores. Well, that plus an article or two about Costco.
http://stfudamnit.com/2013/05/04/poverty-toilet-paper-and-th...
It means things are directly comparable across brands and sizes ("how does this 117g portion compare to this 270g one?"). It's a fantastic bit of legislation.
http://www.extension.org/pages/45117/is-unit-pricing-mandato...
Strange that Walmart customer support was 100x better.
They're doing something right I think.
I'd go out since my mother had to get up at 5:00. That card allowed us to scrape by during some very rough times. I hate to think where we'd have ended up without it.
I'm glad to see a little sympathetic light being shown on this. It always irritates me a bit to hear these programs and the people they help derided politically.
Today, I pay far more in taxes each month than my entire family consumed in such benefits each year growing up.
Also, some cheap items are disproportionately bad for one's health...if I were poor, it'd be hard to justify buying two apples over a Big Mac, given the calorie per dollar ratios.
This is discussed in numerous really interesting ways in "Makers" by Cory Doctorow: http://craphound.com/makers/download/
She replied that if she'd spent that money on food, she'd eat well this month but would just go hungry again next month. This way, she'd go hungry all the time, but at least she could lose herself in a movie and forget about it. There's a peculiar kind of logic to that which I can't really argue with, despite the common Internet refrain about how poor people are poor because of their own stupidity.
Celery is the classical example of this.
The thing is, the digestion calories are one small portion of the dietary effects of any food.
For example, some increase thermogenesis, so you could account for that
Yes, apart from cold water it seems hard to think any food can provide no calories. Evolution took care of our digestive tract extracting the most of food (unless you're eating paper)
Big Mac: 600 kcal. Half a day's worth of fat, protein, and sodium. 12% RDA of fiber, 30% of calcium, 25% iron.
If you could only eat one or the other, you'd probably be better off with the Big Mac. If you wanted to turn these two poor choices into a full day of three meals, you should probably eat two Big Macs and 6 apples (plus lots of water, and hopefully a vitamin supplement).
delusions are not your ally. try not to embrace them with such zeal.
A lot of my projects have been from outsourcing sites. But some of them have been from small companies that weren't trying to outsource, just didn't have the biggest budgets. There seem to be quite a lot of software projects that have fairly restricted budgets, and unfortunately those are the ones I know how to get. Sometimes things are good for a few months and I don't have to worry, but oftentimes I need to complete some aspect of a project and get a PayPal from the client right away or I won't be able to pay bills.
Maybe I am the exception, but I doubt I am really alone in this, and thought I should admit it in case anyone else is struggling.
It doesn't take much - do a nice write up about yourself on LinkedIn and ask previous customers to write endorsements.
A hand to mouth developer has to prioritize by which project will pay an invoice the fastest rather than the highest paying project (I need to get paid today, I can't afford to wait for big corp to pay me net 30.) That means plans may change on a day to day basis and low priority projects get delayed.
The hand to mouth developer may unexpectedly fall off the radar because he got his internet shut off and can't pay the bill.
The hand to mouth developer takes on too much work and ends up delaying everything because he doesn't have enough time to knock everything out. If he hits burnout from this, then he may fall off the radar indefinitely.
You MUST set your rates at least to a point where you can save money. You MUST have at least a 3 month cushion (the more the merrier.)
For those looking to hire freelance developers, a low rate should be a red flag. You don't want to risk your business on someone who is being affected by these issues.
The big shot web devs in HN and in blogging forums are the exception -- and, through survivorship bias et al, they make it sound like it was just their "hard work and persistence" that got them there.
The only strategy you need to understand is "follow the money". Always try to understand how critical the project is to customer's core money making activities. If the project is an experimental iPhone app for promotional purposes, the budget is likely to be constrained.
For some odd reason, asking for more money seem to be really hard for many developers. We seem to have some internal mental critic saying that "You are not worth it". You can read stories from HN of people who have to get drunk to be able to send a bill to the customer. I remember how I kept postponing sending my first 100€/h bill to customer because I had these looming thoughts that it was somehow unfair. Despite that the customer was a huge organization making millions a month, and my work had helped them enormously.
After your income spikes, start saving some of it so that you can tolerate lean periods between clients. This will let you stop working for less-desirable clients and try experiments like bumping your rate without having to worry about what this will do to a count-on-one-hand number of clients in the pipeline.
(This can be done on approximately a $100 budget in Ogaki, so that's probably the upper bound for you. If you can't afford that, write up how this advice actually worked out for you in a blog post and I'll reimburse you.)
Invite people via pre-existing networks like e.g. the Chamber of Commerce, which is generally happy to tell their members about free events which aren't (explicit) sales pitches.
When meeting people, ask about their business problems. Listen. Tell them that you understand those problems. If appropriate, say that you think you can produce a solution to those problems, since you are in the business of doing that as a technology consultant, and offer to discuss that problem in more detail after the event.
One thing that programmers forget is that, at some point, you weren't good at programming, but over time, you learned and now you are pretty good.
Your business/social skills may be at that same starting level, and this isn't something you read about on the internets and are immediately good at.
Start now, plan on doing this over time, and learn to get better at it. It takes effort, but it will be worth it.
That right there: "One thing that programmers forget is that, at some point, you weren't good at programming, but over time, you learned and now you are pretty good."
That's just an enormous revelation. I can't even tell you how good it was to talk to Dave Rodenbaugh and he basically said: "See, you are now good in giving talks. Do you remember the first time?" and I was like: "Yeah, I remember: I nearly cried afterwards"
And I needed someone to tell me this!
Look for someone that impresses you - both technically and professionally. Someone that, if you could succeed in patterning yourself after, you'd consider yourself fulfilled and successful. Grab their ear, pick their brains, ask them for advice. Show them your interest, enthusiasm, and aptitude - and earn their respect. Hopefully, they'll help you get to where you want to be.
If you don't do _anything_ else, fill out your HN profile with some contact information. Right now, you're making it difficult/impossible for potential clients/employers to contact (the Hacker News) you. Why?
It's 0 to do with your lack of degree. I have a degree in philosophy from 20 years ago - that plays 0 role in determining projects. Word of mouth and referrals are a primary key to projects coming in. How do you get those?
Networking events help some, but it's a slower process and more of a 'long term' effort to be keeping up. Finding events focused on a particular industry you want to serve (education, finance, writers, construction, food service, etc) will give you a bigger bang for your time investment. You may not have a portfolio specifically focused on 'industry x', but it doesn't matter - showing up at some of their events - and talking to people - will connect you with some players.
Asking people for referrals will generally help too, although doing this with clients from outsourcing sites won't - they've already demonstrated how they want to search for labor. If they like you, they won't want to loan their 'secret weapon' out to friends/colleagues - if they don't, they would't want to ruin their reputation by referring you to someone else. This is somewhat perverse, but it's logic I've heard from more than a few people who've found 'good' developers via sites like odesk. This only applies to people who are continually using your services on a regular basis though.
Following up on patio11 - run your own functions, and/or start your own meetup/networking group. Being the person who runs a regional meetup group will make you the gatekeeper for people who want to contact your group members, generally when they have job/project offers. This won't necessarily be a flood of business on day - again, this a bit more of a long-term strategy - but it can have some moderately quick pay off in some areas.
But... you will need those social skills - I've no idea if yours are good or bad, but just by doing some of these things and putting yourself out there, you'll be demonstrating at least a willingness to learn or improve those skills.
Find local/regional development shops - marketing agencies doing web work, for example - and ask if they have any overflow work. This isn't necessarily going to get you $100/hour work off the bat, but will connect you with more people in your area. That said, for newer projects, they may just price you in to their proposals, and as it's not the agency's money, they won't care too much what your price is - it's just one component of the project.
Also, re: AWS, Node, CoffeeScript - etc - the types of projects you're going to find on outsourcing sites aren't typically going to be relying on those. Business owners care far more about just getting something done than what tech it's using, but those that want specific tech by name probably aren't clamoring for coffeescript or typescript at this point - they'll be asking for drupal or wordpress or magenta by name.
I'm at mgkimsal@gmail.com and would be interested in helping out more if I can - feel free to email me and we can discuss things in private more directly if you'd like.
I'd also throw out that I think you might need to consider travel - no idea if you do that or not, but I've had some projects I couldn't give to people because they weren't available to come on site a few times during the project (as in, drive 5-6 hours and stay overnight).
FWIW, I don't think you're alone - I think there's a number of people in your situation.
Instead, it merely remarks that some US corporations have noticed an upward trend in the number of their customers who are a part of this very predictable cycle (pay/benefits days, usually at the end of the month), and mentions that more "middle-class" are now a part of the cycle.
However, it doesn't delve much deeper than linking it to the recession, and doesn't offer any insights into how these businesses are adapting other than vague references to "big data" (with a hat-trick of references to the term).
1) there is no bus or other public transportation
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. 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. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
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 the 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 socioeconomic unfairness.”
Source: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/72745-the-reason-that-the-ri...
This is by no means a value judgement -- been there, done that -- and more just a reality of the situation.
I suppose part of the trick is to realize you're living less than a zero sum life, and then grinding even worse off for a long while to save enough up for a pair of boots that will then save you enough to lift your life up by the bootstraps.
Take on debt to amortize against future positive sums.
End yourself.
Change the weights in your utility formula.
It's a question of cash flow.
It's a vicious cycle, too; the lower your cash flow is, the less you can exploit economies of scale, and the less you can save, keeping your cash flow limited. Catastrophic events (such as an unexpected illness) are more likely to create debt, and debt service (interest and repayment of principal) reduces your cash flow further.
While wealth, at some point, becomes self-sustaining.
Once you've saved up a decent amount, it makes much more sense to go with a very high deductible plan. Sure, you might lose 10k in one year through some disaster, but on average you'll pay much less than that, such that it's cheaper to forgo insurance for everyday health expenses.
If you're poor, though, having to spend 10k out of pocket will throw you into a spiral of debt, bankruptcy, and poverty, on top of the associated health problems. Even 1k out of pocket can ruin you.
Over decades, you can reasonably expect to save tens of thousands of dollars on health insurance with a high deductible instead of a "comprehensive" plan.
Insurance is a tax on people who are bad at math.
1. Don't skimp on quality when necessary.
2. Have empathy for those with less means. Getting out of the rut of low-income swpending patterns is often non-trivial.
There are about 3 ways to interpret that statement.
How people interpret it at first reading basically describes their political philosophies.
It goes something like "You shouldn't say stuff like that, its prejudice against the poor, don't be so arrogant, hateful, etc." The quote is a call to action: We should help the poor make better choices; we should help the poor have better choices; and the third "we should make it so people don't talk like this". I find the last one the most troubling.
Personally I think both sides should soften their approaches and try to meet in the middle of #1 and #2 for surely its a continuum stretching between the two. The third reaction baffles me.
Unless I'm missing something it sounds like a reaction and not at all an interpretation.
With what you're thinking of, the actual reaction someone has to the statement, after deciding what is linguistically intended... I've got to believe there are a lot more than 3 possible reactions. One that you haven't mentioned is the tendency to immediate demand a differentiation between "good poor" and "bad poor". This was one of the less brilliant innovations of eighties political culture in the US.
"The poor are poor", can simply be a statement about the financial situation of a particular demographic or it can be a statement about the unhappiness of peoples lot, pity really, for those who're confined by their finances.
So:
People [without money|downtrodden] are [without money|downtrodden|to be pitied] because all of their [decisions|options] suck.
Who you think the term poor applies too is another way the phrase can be interpreted. "Trump is poor, he only values money", etc..
A diet of strictly rice and beans will net 1500 calories for $.30 - $.50 per day. That's not an appetizing diet, but provides a base number for calibration.
Cheap eating discussion:
If minimum wage was $22 an hour the price of dinner for two at Applebee's would increase around 80 cents. $22 an hour is what the wage should be in keeping pace with workers increased productivity.
If the minimum wage was in fact a livable wage young adults could support themselves with an entry level job. I believe unemployment is the highest among males 18 - 22 years old.
Where does the missing 80 cents go?