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.
#1 by Issa at May 21st, 2009
“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.” – I think he’s referring to the need to pay the bill at the last minute, not trying to “save” the time it takes to mail it. He mentions the late fee – if he mailed it at the last minute (when he has the money) then he gets a late fee. This is then only a “bad” decision if the 10% from the bill-pay place is more than the late fee would be.
You’ve found some examples of exaggerating or reaching here. The one about the bonus grocery card is really weird and doesn’t make much sense.
What do you think about other aspects of poverty being more expensive?
#2 by Joshua Bardwell at May 21st, 2009
Issa : What do you think about other aspects of poverty being more expensive?
Like with the groceries, or the ability to buy in bulk to save money, and stuff like that… I agree that stuff exists, but it feels kind of morally neutral to me. Probably the biggest objection that I have is that poor people are much less able to choose an alternative system wherein they might be more successful. Getting from poor to middle-class is hard and lots of people will never succeed at that. In the system in which they are participating, moving up and earning more money is the only way to security. But there are other systems with other forms of security. For example, if a person has the means to produce their own food, then they don’t need money to buy it from someone else. This is a form of security that is not based on earning money. But the means to produce food and other basic necessities are pretty much only accessible via money in the current system, so money is the main way of getting security, and the poor lack the means to get money (this is a tautology if you think about it) so they lack the means to get security and will probably never have it. It just seems very sad for people to be stuck in a system at which they will probably never win, and for their only option to be to keep playing, instead of having the option to select a different system in which they might have different results.
#3 by Issa at May 21st, 2009
It just seems very sad for people to be stuck in a system at which they will probably never win, and for their only option to be to keep playing, instead of having the option to select a different system in which they might have different results.
I agree that this is very sad. In some ways, it is illegal to be anything but the pre-aprroved type of poor. For example, there are many obstacles to choosing to go without utilities, such as housing restrictions that require working utilities to over-zealous CPS guidelines that say children must live in homes with utilities. Other obstacles are simply social pressure. imagine the reaction from your boss if you washed your clothes every night and wore the same outfit to work everyday. I can imagine a boss inventing an excuse to fire you, or outright claiming that your “nonprofessionalism” is the reason for your firing. I am hesitant to be critical of people who are “failing” to be successful in a system that doesn’t allow for anything else. As a society, we PREFER for people to be the kind of poor we’re comfortable with than for them to make radically different choices that take them outside the system. Given that, it’s an extra-special kind of asshattery to then complain about what they’re doing.
#4 by kitty at May 21st, 2009
I agree, this article used some bullshit examples, but the theory is sound. Being poor things do tend to cost more, especially in the long run, the reporter should have stuck more to those sorts of things. But, even when you are really, really poor you do have choices, and the article should look at that some too. Many of the really poor people I have know (I have have known lots) make routine bad decisions. Like one of my sisters would have to end up living in hotel rooms and out of her car on a week to week basis sometimes, because she could not get an apartment. But she always had big gaudy jewelry and cigarettes. When she did get money she would blow it super fast. That is why she is poor and always will be. I am not saying that the poor deserve to be poor, but more that the poor don’t always have the tools (education, logic) to make good decisions, or they could just be worthless people, poor does not equal victim everytime.
#5 by StacyCat at May 21st, 2009
As far as bank accounts, if a person has ever bounced checks in the past, or has a bad credit score, it can be very difficult if not impossible to get a checking account. Or, the accounts have high barriers to entry such as fees and minimum opening deposits.
The “dont have time to mail it early” most likely means they get paid so close to the time that the bill is due that they are unable to pay it earlier. In addition, because they have little extra money, they cant pay in advance.
Im not going to argue that many poor people do things that keep them in that cycle. But, there are many factors that are acting against them.
#6 by Joshua Bardwell at May 22nd, 2009
StacyCat :Im not going to argue that many poor people do things that keep them in that cycle. But, there are many factors that are acting against them.
As I think about this issue, I think the primary factor acting against them (other than their own actions, to whatever degree that contributes) is our current economic and monetary system. There’s a lot more to say about that (Douglas Rushkoff has written a whole book about it–”Corporatized”). Our current monetary system specifically has the effect of rewarding those who have money by giving them more money, and making it harder for those who don’t have money to get it.