Archive for May, 2009

“The High Cost of Poverty” – Washington Post

This article in the Washington Post describes the phenomenon behind the phrase, “Being poor is expensive.” I agree that people with little money sometimes end up spending more on the same items that those with more money can get cheaper. The article gives the example of urban poor having the choice of either riding a bus for a few hours to get to and from a grocery store or spending much more to buy the same items at a close-by convenience store.

When it comes to food, there’s not much to argue about. You’ve gotta eat. If you don’t live close to a grocery store and you don’t own a vehicle, your choices are pretty limited. But so many of the other examples given by the author ring false to me.

The poor pay more in hassle: the calls from the bill collectors, the landlord, the utility company. So they spend money to avoid the hassle. The poor pay for caller identification because it gives them peace of mind to weed out calls from bill collectors.

Here, the author seems to have confused “the poor” with “people who don’t pay their bills”. I get it. When you’ve got money, it’s easier to live within your means and pay your bills on time. It’s easier to weather an unexpected expense without falling behind. But that doesn’t mean that poor people don’t pay their bills too. As far as I’m concerned, this comment does a disservice to those poor people who live within their means and pay their bills on time.

The rich have direct deposit for their paychecks. The poor have check-cashing and payday loan joints, which cost time and money.

I’m sorry. Can poor people not get checking accounts too? It’s been a long time since I opened an account, so I browsed the web sites of several popular banks, and it looks to me like all you need is an address, a deposit, and a social security number.

Outside the ACE check-cashing office on Georgia Avenue in Petworth, Harrison Blakeney, 67, explains a hard financial lesson of poverty. He uses the check-cashing store to pay his telephone bill. The store charges 10 percent to take Blakeney’s money and send the payment to the phone company. That 10 percent becomes what it costs him to get his payment to the telephone company on time. Ten percent is more than the cost of a stamp. But, Blakeney says: “I don’t have time to mail it. You come here and get it done. Then you don’t get charged with the late fee.”

You “don’t have time to mail it”? Somebody explain this to me. You have time to go to the check cashing place, stand in line, and pay the bill, but you don’t have time to get a stamp and drop the bill in the mail? What am I missing here? Could poor financial decisions like this be contributing to Mr. Blakeney’s situation?

You ask him why he didn’t just go to a bank. But his story is as complicated as the various reasons people find themselves in poverty and in need of a check-cashing joint. He says he lost his driver’s license and now his regular bank “won’t recognize me as a human. That’s why I had to come here. It’s a rip-off, but it’s like a convenience store. You pay for the convenience.”

Losing your driver’s license is not unique to poor people, but nevertheless, you can get a state-issued picture ID at the DMV. Will that cost you in terms of time and money? Probably. But how many checks would you have to cash for free at your own bank, instead of paying $15/$100 at the check-cashing place, to make up that cost?

On a hot spring afternoon, Jacob Carter finds himself standing in a checkout line at the Giant on Alabama Avenue SE. Before the cashier finishes ringing up his items, he puts $43 on the conveyor belt. But his bill comes to $52.07. He has no more money, so he tells the clerk to start removing items.

The clerk suggests that he use his “bonus card” for savings.

Carter tells the clerk he has no such card.

I checked online. The Giant bonus card is free. You can apply for one and get it immediately at the customer service desk in any Giant grocery store. Why doesn’t he have one? Why doesn’t he go get one right now? The author of the article is more interested in presenting a sob-story than in actually examining the issue, and so does not raise questions like these.

I may be a Jack-Booted Liberal, but I’m not Liberal enough to sympathize with these stories.

Share

7 Comments

Compensation for work at burns

staff-onlyAt a burn, there are usually tasks that someone thinks ought to get done, but that they don’t want to or aren’t able to do themselves. Picking up MOOP (Matter Out Of Place, also known as trash) is a common one. It seems like there is always the temptation to encourage desired behavior with rewards, but I  worry. In my fantasy world, the people at a burn would pick up MOOP because they believed in the principle of LNT, not because they wanted a cold drink. The person giving out the drink would do so because they wanted to express the principle of gifting, not because they wanted to get people to do something that they wouldn’t otherwise have done. Wait a minute! Burns are my fantasy world!

On some level, I feel like exchanging presents for work at a burn taints both the present and the work. I have the same uncomfortable feeling when theme camps want to give organizers cutsies in the food line, or a while back when somebody was talking about giving coffee mugs to people who volunteer. God damn it, organizing Alchemy is my vacation! I love being a board member. I love being a ranger. Thanking me for those things would be like giving me a slice of pizza and then thanking me for eating it. I just want to say, “No! Thank you for the pizza! It was delicious! Do you have any more?!” Rewarding me for eating delicious pizza that you gave me just feels weird.

Have I gotten special treatment because I help organize a burn? Sure. Last year, team leads were all given a unique piece of schwag. I don’t have a problem with people gifting to whomever they want to gift to. Where I start to feel wierd is when I hear people say, “Not enough people are volunteering to do X, so let’s set up an incentive in the form of a privilege or reward.” My ideal would be for people’s first motivation to be the love of the act, and if they get privileges or rewards as a result of that, all the better. But if people need to be incentivized, then that pretty much means that their first motivation is the incentive, and not the love of the act, and I’m not sure I want to encourage that type of interaction at my burn.

At this point, you are probably thinking, “Yeah right. Like people are going to pick up trash because they ‘love it’.” I get that. Picking up trash isn’t my favorite thing to do, but I can see how acting on the principle of LNT results in things that I do love. For example, we have gotten nothing but positive comments from the people who own and live on the land that we rent for Alchemy, and LNT is part of that. We’re leaving an impression of burners as, “Those people who put on an awesome party and clean up the land when they’re done!” That’s the kind of thing that I really love.

My philosophy is that when there is a task that people don’t want to do, the way to motivate them is to inform them of the effect of doing the task and not doing the task. If, with that information in hand, they still don’t want to do the task, then the right thing to do is to allow the task not to get done, and allow them to experience the outcome of not doing it. This allows people to be fully responsible for their own experience. If you’re going around doing things for people that you think need to get done when you’d really rather they be doing it for themselves, then you’re denying them the opportunity to take responsibility for their own experience, which isn’t doing them or you any favors.

For more on the effect of rewards and external incentives, check out Punished By Rewards, by Alfie Kohn.

Share

,

1 Comment

Ask an atheist: Why not be an optimist and just believe in God?

I call myself an atheist. This means that I do not see sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis of an anthro-centric god. In this segment, I answer your questions about atheism.

Josef Nix of Atlanta asks:

Given than none of us really knows and it’s all a matter of faith, be it yes or no, then why not opt for belief and be an optimist?

All other things being equal, I’m a fan of optimism. Unfortunately, belief in deity is only optimistic if you believe that the existence of deity is a good thing. Taking the Christian God as an example, if he exists, then he has an opinion on all sorts of my behavior, and if I don’t step into line, I’m going to end up burning in a lake of fire for all eternity. No thanks! From my perspective disbelief in deity is the optimistic view.

Share

1 Comment

Buying drugs is morally equivalent to selling them

From the Grand Rapids Press:

GRAND RAPIDS — The family of a Grand Valley State University student [Derek Copp] shot by police said he did nothing to provoke gunfire in a drug raid at the student’s off-campus apartment.

“All he had time to do was cover his face from a flashlight in his eyes, and they shot him,” George Copp said today.

“From what I understand, half the kids in the school may smoke pot,” George Copp told WOOD-TV. “And he does, he may, too, but he’s not a drug dealer. He’s a good kid, and he shouldn’t have been shot for that.”

I agree with George Copp: Derek didn’t deserve to get shot. But should we take his statement to mean that, if Derek had been selling marijuana, then he would have deserved to be shot? That’s probably not what Mr. Copp meant. What he probably meant was, “I cannot believe that my son was doing anything that warranted his being shot.” And he’s right. And he would still be right even if Derek had been selling drugs. Just like people who buy drugs, people who sell drugs do not deserve to be shot by police officers who have kicked in their door in the middle of the night.

scarface

Al Pacino portrays cocaine dealer Tony Montana in "Scarface"

Mr. Copp’s comment reveals the degree to which some people have bought into the drug warriors’ propaganda. Drug dealers are portrayed as scary, evil criminals, who are deserving of the harsh, pseudo-military actions that the police take against them. The reality is more complex; the line between a drug “dealer” and a drug “user” is not a hard one. If you consume beer or wine, do you share it with friends who come over to visit? If you split a case of beer with a friend, do you let them give you some cash in return? If you smoke, do you let friends bum cigarettes off of you? Have you ever sold a pack to somebody who couldn’t get to the store? The answer to these questions is probably yes. Does that make you a liquor or cigarette “dealer”? Because you definitely don’t have a license to sell liquor or cigarettes, so perhaps the cops should kick down your door in the middle of the night and shoot you in the chest.

People do the same thing with illegal drugs that they do with legal drugs: they share them with their friends. Except that because the price of illegal drugs is artificially inflated by prohibition, people are much more likely to demand payment in return. Derek Copp might not have been making a living selling marijuana, but if he smoked marijuana at all, then it is essentially guaranteed that he shared it with his friends in a way that is legally and morally equivalent to “dealing”. Is he shooting people on the street? No. Is he making anything more than a pitiful profit? Probably not, because all of the margins in drug distribution are added in at the top. Margins to the street dealer are low, and street dealers rely on volume, which Derek doesn’t have, because he’s not doing this full time (or even part time, really). Congratulations, dad, he’s still a “drug dealer”.

But even if Derek had never sold or shared a single bud of marijuana, it wouldn’t matter, because the act of buying drugs is morally equivalent to the act of selling them. A dealer without a buyer is just a person who’s sitting on an impractically huge stockpile of drugs. The dealer and the buyer are equal partners in the exchange, and each is as morally responsible for the transaction as the other. So, I guess what I’m trying to say is that everyone who buys and sells drugs deserves to get shot in the chest by a police officer who kicked in their door in the middle of the night.

No. Wait. That was sarcasm. That’s the opposite of what I’m trying to say. My point is that the buyer and the seller of drugs are both “good kids,” as George Copp would say—at least insofar as their only crime is that of possessing and distributing prohibited substances. If one of them is out there murdering people on the street corner, then they should be brought to justice, but the morality of that act is separate from the morality of the buying and selling of drugs. If drugs and violent crime are often associated with each other, then that’s because of prohibition, not because of anything inherent to drugs. When was the last time you heard of an epidemic of violence over alcohol or tobacco distribution? Philip Morris doesn’t have to pop a cap in anyone’s ass. They can just take you court.

The buyer of drugs and the street-level dealer might be innocent of any violent crimes, but like any black-market item, if you follow the drug distribution chain far enough, you’ll find violence. If the buyer and the seller are morally equivalent, then does that make them both transitively responsible for the acts of violence that are committed to bring their product to market? If Derek Copp smokes Mexican weed, is he partially morally responsible for the Mexican police officers who were murdered by the drug cartels who produced the weed? The drug warriors, in their passion to condemn everyone and everything associated with drugs, would say yes, and hang Derek for his ten-thousandth-share of the murders. But be careful. Would you like to apply that standard to everything in your life? Would you like to be held morally responsible for the third-world laborers who worked in a sweat-shop to produce your sneakers? Would you like to be held morally responsible for the Africans who died so that De Beers could sell you a lovely diamond engagement ring? Oh, and oil. Lovely, lovely oil. If there’s a bloodier natural resource on Earth, I don’t know what it is, and we all use it. Even if you don’t own a car, basically every single thing you own was transported to you by burning oil. As Shakespeare wrote, “Use every man after his desert, and who shall ‘scape whipping?”

All marijuana prices in this article were looked up on the Internet, so if you’re sitting there going, “What the fuck this guy is getting ripped off,” or, “Shit, I wanna know who that guy’s buying from,” blame the Internet. No, I cannot hook you up with some weed.

Share

, , , ,

3 Comments

Google suggestions for “Am I…”

When you start typing things into Google, it pops up a list of suggestions. Sometimes the suggestions are fun.

google-ami

Are you pregnant? If you are in love, perahps you will become pregnant soon! Unless you’re overweight or fat. Then you become depressed because you are overweight, in love, but not pregnant. Or maybe you are depressed because you’re pregnant. Perhaps you should have a drink to steady yourself.

Anybody else out there wonder why, “Am I gay” isn’t higher on the list? Google fudging the numbers maybe?

Share

1 Comment