Do we have data on how much free time and external costs the poor have been burdened with over time?
I could see it going either way (and this is presumably monstrously tricky to account fairly). My lived experience is that many folks have things they'd prefer to do than organizing (I'm looking at phones and social media), over and above the impositions on their lives. But I'd like to know that I'm wrong.
Not exactly the tweet, but dropping this again here because of the title.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... 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. ... 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 a 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 socio-economic unfairness.
This might not apply anymore though since it seems capitalism found out about it and companies realized they could make the $50 boots as trash as the $10 boots and the rich wouldn’t think twice about throwing them out at the same rate so the two options now are spending $10 a year or $50 a year on boots.
A tough lesson I learned when I got worked my way into the middle class was that all the “expensive version that will last you” items are a thing of the past.
When us poors run into trouble, we have to deal with it immediately, without a chance to plan for it or save up for it or make other arrangements, so we have to buy the cheap boots, because we don't have the financial buffer to absorb the impact of the 50 dollar boots on our budgets, even knowing it will save us money in the long run, because we're living so threadbare that money is stretched to the limit.
Waiting for buses and other public transport especially. In college I had no car and continued working a part time job that I previously borrowed my parents' car to commute to. My options were: spending an hour and a half to commute taking a bus with a reasonable schedule but I'd have to walk over a mile alongside a busy road to my job, or spend three hours to commute due to how two route schedules matched up to drop me off at the entrance to the shopping center.
Each of those options was one way, and this was before smart phones. I wasn't getting anything done in that time besides listening to music and maybe reading a book while on the bus itself.
And then I learned that on Saturdays, over half the time the bus just didn't fucking show up at the stop where I got on, and the support phone line would just fucking lie about it.
Plus, if I had a vehicle, the commute would have been only 20 minutes in bad traffic.
Will say, the regular distance power walking helped keep me in great shape though.
I wonder how infrastructure would change if companies were required to reimburse valid claims of mileage or time spent (not the bus/train fare, but paying your wage for the time spent to get to work).
While the intent is good, as written it would probably have the unintended consequence of making it harder to get a job if you happen to live far away from the workplace, which I don't think is the way to go
I knew as I wrote it that it would be far more complex than just setting a single law down. But the fact that such cost of time and money just to get to work exists suggests the burden isn't balanced well. The case you mention of distance to a job is more a symptom of the problem of not being more localized for everything. Not just an American problem, but definitely something we deal with outside of a few major urban areas. A pay adjustment doesn't fix that, it just is a rough patch that wouldn't work for some.
In all honesty I think it's connected to the housing crisis bleeding into basically every other political issue, because of how damn massive of a problem it is
I had a job 2.5 miles from my apartment. There is a bus stop on the corner of my apartment, there is a bus stop next to the job. According to the website it was 3 hours to commute by bus to get there...
I wouldn't be surprised if that bus included connections to other lines on top of it all.
I had to commute by bus for a while. The transfer is where my anxiety peaked. Being miles away from home and hoping not to miss a second bus just to make it to work on time meant my brain was on high alert the whole time.
Bus transfers are the worst…
In my city, we have a pretty good network of busses … IF your goal is the city center.
All the routes just do a spiderweb towards the center. You’re on your own if you needed to go between neighborhoods.
Bicycle? Others take dedicated time to do workouts. This is basically the perfect distance for a short workout (and time in between commuting is also basically optimal for recovery according to research). Keeps you fit and healthy without thinking about doing more sport (which is still a good idea). I'm even faster on that kind of distance than a car.
I could never drive the bus/train, commuting by bicycle is too fun and way more flexible (even than a car, considering less options for driving and parking). The distance would have to be larger than 20 miles (or non-"freedom" units: 32 km) that I would consider something else...
I actually considered getting an ebike once to get to work, but then started mapping out a good route to take and realized the infrastructure isn't designed for that kind of travel. Bonus, it would be at night, so statistically someone in a car would be a threat to me eventually, because bike lanes are a joke.
I don't know your distance for commuting. But I consider the bicycle the most superior form of commuting for distances below 10 miles(16km) (personally would even cycle more than double that).
It's even cheaper, keeps you healthy and often is even faster than a car, considering parking, traffic lights/jams etc.. I also enjoy doing that so another advantage.
Yeah plus most jobs don't like you showing up dripping and smelling like a varsity locker room.
My locale even tried to build in employee showers to encourage bike commuting, but it hits 110⁰F outside and there's not a cloud in the sky, like LOL dudes you gotta be kidding.
I'd love to live in a place where the humble bicycle was viable beyond recreation.
I can recommend a cooling west for these cases. They are quite effective on the bicycle (moving air enhances the effect). I usually don't care much about a little bit of sweat, I just turn the ventilation on max then at my office. We even have a shower, but never used it... I think sweat is overrated and often an excuse to not cycle...
Ive run into this too. How many times Id just walk to work for the 1.5hours instead of taking the bus that took just as long, but would drop me off at work either 2hours early, or 15mins late. so Id just walk it.
Same with being disabled, growing up I thought disabled people just got helped by everyone in society with everything. Turns out most of the time it's "do what you were doing before except harder."
Being poor is super expensive. When you don't have enough money in your bank account they'll charge you a monthly fee. When you're too poor to have an account, you have to go to a check cashing place and pay to get paid. Too poor to have awesome credit? You have to pay higher interest fees and larger deposits.
That's not true if you have bad enough credit or are a migrant worker. There's an entire check cashing industry based on taking advantage of people who can't get bank accounts and charging outrageous fees.
Many banks specifically offer services to people with bad credit and bad banking histories. Here is a Forbes article about them with a list of ones they recommend. And another article if you aren't convinced.
There’s an entire check cashing industry based on taking advantage of people who can’t get bank accounts and charging outrageous fees.
There is an industry around this because people keep spreading misinformation about not being able to get a bank account if you have bad credit; resulting in people not looking into getting a bank account. Stop spreading misinformation, it hurts people.
I thought people only went to them because they didn't want to wait for checks to clear, or they didn't want a paper trail on a checking account, because it would get automatically garnished for child support.
Are you saying that someone could actually be so poor that a bank will refuse them from opening a checking account? What risk is there to the bank if it goes empty?
Are you saying that someone could actually be so poor that a bank will refuse them from opening a checking account?
If you really don't have any money other than your paycheck, you can open that bank account....with the check you need to deposit. Virtually every bank will give you a free account if you deposit your paycheck with them.
A bank account is something everyone can have. This idea you can be too poor for a bank account is a myth.
Ive cashed paychecks at one point using these placss. I dont think I had a bank account at the time. To open an account you have to deposit money. I couldnt afford to just leave money in an account in any given week, so I didnt have one. So I used to cash them at Stop n Shop, a grocery store. They would do it for a small fee. Then one day, they said they wouldnt cash my checks anymore, because my credit was bad? It made no sense to me at the time.
So for about a year, I used the local sketch ball check cashing place. I think they took 8% or something. Later in life, there was a time I just cashed them at walmart. Damn, there was a time in my life I was too broke to have a bank account. oye.
A lot of people come from a cycle of poverty where no one around them can explain why it's a good idea to have a bank account.
Also, there are predatory banks that demand minimum amounts to start any account. If you don't have $200.00 to start an account it's hard to start an account.
Back in the day, banks encouraged little kids to start bank accounts with just a few dollars. I had a bank book when I was 12. Those days are long gone. I went to Bank of America with a check from a BOA account and they wanted to charge me. I could wait to get to my own bank, but other folks wouldn't have that option.
I understand your comment to be snark. From what I remember:
Reagan was a commie scare guy who blacklisted his enemies in the screenactors guild if they didnt share his conservative viewpoint.
Reaganomics was flatly stupid or a con job, take your pick-- just tax cuts for the rich that were supposed to trickle down and never did, and massive swathes of dergulation, including environmental rules. His deregulation of the banking industry caused the savings and loan crisis that cost a lot of people their life savings, and destroyed the US economy for a good long time and caused a recession.
Iran Contra happened on his watch (although he claims he knew nothing about it). The CIA were literally flying pallets of cocaine into florida air force bases on private cargo planes and selling them on our streets to make money. I find it hard to beleive that a single lowly colonel could have run all of it, using the presidents CIA.
He was a bad B-list actor. His movies sucked really bad, even back then.
He was reportedly a closetted bisexual (with Howard cook before he was married) whose shame steered him to slow walk AIDs treatments for 6 years while his surgeon general screamed for him to allow it, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands who needed treatment during an explosion of AIDS.
The only good thing about him was that he wasnt under AIPAC's thumb. But he still gets an F on policy and basic decency, although republicans and dems both adored his grandfather-leader BS act. The man was a complete idiot, as are his followers.
Credit Unions for example require a share purchase usually so while it's usually quite small some people can't afford to loose even $5.
Sometimes it's also debt, guy owes his normal bank a fuckload of money so uses the cash checking to cash his check, he might lose a bit in fees but it's probably less than what the bank would of taken. I've seen alot of contractors in this situation.
Then don't give them overdraft? I bet a lot of them don't even want it and would rather it just reject any payments that would put it in the negative because they charge extra for using overdraft, too.
Banks have a separate system, like the credit rating system, they use just for depositors. Credit scores reflect the risk to lend money to you. But the banks keep other scores and lists of depositors. Too many overdrafts or transactions their AI considers suspicious? You can be blacklisted from opening an account at any bank.
I fucking hate that saying so much. I've started telling people just because you and everyone else at the marathon might have the same 23 miles to go, when 9/10 of you are shackled to a heavy steel ball, and at least half are dragging 2 or 3, then that distance means fuck all.
The time theft has a far reach. I’ve worked with kids who’ve gone inpatient for mental health, acting out in school, etc. Why? Because mom isn’t there. It’s not willful neglect. It’s neglect through not neglecting her motherly duties by working 2-3 jobs to keep the lights on and shoes on her child’s feet.
Time is a key reason we need to be paid more, have a much higher minimum wage, though it isn’t often mentioned.
That's it right there. The politicians are always rambling "We need jobs."
No. We need money, which might come from decent jobs.
"Jobs for jobs' sake" is how we have mental health crises from countless practically-parentless households because everybody's desperately, constantly working in needlessly stressful conditions.
Jobs are why most of us have no meaningful connections shortly after our highest level of schooling, because everyone's on wacky schedules and has no time for anyone but the shallowest relationships with whomever they happen to be stuck working with.
Jobs gave us broken homes and skyrocketing suicide rates.
Jobs can shove right off, for all they've taken from us, and our "bosses" can be sunk into the deep right along with 'em.
I was fortunate. We were considered poor but not so poor that mom wasn’t home with us. Thrift clothes and homemade clothes (a very cheap option in the 80s) got us teased mercilessly, but the parents were present.
There have been articles lately about the young generations aging faster. It’s always been noteworthy in medicine. People, on the worst case scenarios, looking 60 when they’re 40. Not from outdoor life but just hard life. Given the overt stress the younger gen’s are under on all sides it fits.
Minimum wage isn't going to cut it anymore. We need UBI.
Democracy is the idea that political authority is derived from the people. The government's power to levy taxes and conduct its business is taken from We The People; We The People should be fairly compensated for the use of that power. We should each be paid a citizenship dividend of 75% of the current poverty level, before we put a single hour on the clock.
Current Poverty line for a single person is $16000. $12000 is 75% of the current single-person household. $12,000/yr, free and clear, before you leave for work on Monday morning. You're above the poverty line by noon on Monday.
You and your partner are both receiving the same UBI. Together, you're receiving $24000/yr. That's 110% of the current poverty rate for a household of two. You're above the line just from your UBI.
For you, your partner, and your two kids, that's $48000/yr. That's 145% of the poverty line for a household of 4.
Does that still seem unreasonable? I'd be ecstatic over 25%.
Even getting a single dollar each year would be nicer than the zero I get now, but I'd rather get fully reimbursed for letting people monopolize my share of the earth. They have no right to claim that for themselves in the first place.
If UBI was intended to be the single, primary source of income, I'd agree that it is too low. But it isn't. The economic purpose is, basically, to remove human need and desperation from contract negotiations and labor agreements.
It's easy to exploit a drowning man. UBI is intended to keep your head above water, so you can always afford to walk away from a shitty boss.
Why should they have to work for somebody else if they don't want to? If I'm single and looking at getting paid below the poverty level, then my head is not above water.
We're the rightful landlords, getting paid less than the sum of all rents.
Who said anything about working for someone else? You're free to conduct your own affairs in any manner you want to. I, personally, want to see that you are compensated for the use of your political authority in our democratic system of government. You don't have to accept that compensation. If you really want nothing to do with any sort of democratic society, you're free to withdraw from it entirely.
But that's pretty much the extent of my interest. You acquire your political power by virtue of being human; the most you are "owed" for the government's use of your political power is that which you need to continue being a human. (Technically, you are owed less: You already receive the benefits of law and order that arise from the government's use of your political powers. The monetary value of the rule of law could be deducted from your "citizenship dividend" and it would still be fair and reasonable.)
UBI does not replace work. It removes the exploitative factors from work. It enables you to take on the risk of working for yourself. Today, you might need 20 hours of wages a week just to live, and you can only devote another 20 hours a week toward your preferred project before you are considered "overworked". With UBI, your "just to live" hours are zero, and you get to devote all your time to your preferred project. That might be gainful employment; that might be charitable work; that might be artistry or writing; that might be gooning 16 hours a day and playing CoD all night.
This "rightful landlords" stuff you're talking about might arise from some other economic system, but not from a "citizenship dividend". Not from "UBI". You are "made whole" for the conveyance of your political powers as a human when your essential human needs are minimally met; that's all UBI is for.
What you seem to be describing is more like society claiming "eminent domain" over all land, taxing everyone who uses the land, and paying that tax out to everyone. In which case, yes, you'll receive something for everyone else's land use. But you'll also owe something for your own land use. You'll owe a lot of money on the valuable residential land where you lay your head. You'll receive a pittance on the cheap agricultural and industrial land used to feed and clothe you. The net flow of money will be opposite the way you think it will be: The farmer and the industrialist will be receiving more than they are paying, for utilizing land that is useless to the overwhelming majority. (Commercialists will pay more than you, though...Commercial land is vastly higher value than residential, which is more valuable than industrial, which is much more valuable than agricultural, which is more valuable than mining lands)
The other thing is how expensive being poor is. Laundry is like 3 dollars a load last I checked. Buy cheap shoes, expect them to last 6 months max. There are food options if you have time to cook but combined with the original poster you won't and you don't have transportation so delivery is only option...
It takes about $17 for a single load at the laundromats near me, both washing and drying. Going once a week, that's over $800 a year.
Which is one reason I've started washing clothes in a 5-gallon (about 19 liters) bucket at home. It sucks, but it saves me money and I get a work out from it. I'd like to get a small machine I could use in an apartment, but where I live it wouldn't be safe to have packages sitting outside all day and I try to avoid big box stores, so I feel pretty screwed.
You might want to look into “portable washing machines” - they’re under 100$ comes in a small box and are good for things like socks and undies.
Regarding the packages, if they are shipping with ups, theres a service where you can choose an alternative delivery location, usually a place like a corner store, or with fedex, a print shop.
I’ve known people to be on hold for 6-8 hours for multiple days with the local food stamp office without being able to get in touch with anyone. At one point the automatic message when you called was ‘too many people are calling, hang up.’
Fun napkin math fact: If we divvied up the top... 5 wealthiest billionaires net worth... that'd get every living man, woman, and child on earth a cool $250 ish.
Sure - its not very much but it certainly does make you think. What if...
The idea of wealth redistribution is in stripping power from the very rich. If you are rich, you influence politics in a way that benefits you by not caring about others.
The problem with Bill Gates' poly vaccine in Africa is not in the fact that it didn't save children, in fact it did. The problem is that measles takes more children's lives in Africa by an order of magnitude and measles vaccination would've saved much more.
Now add to the picture the recent decisions: internet surveillance (age verification), ignoring the Paris agreement, data centers built everywhere. I guess a lot of people would oppose these, but their voices are not heard.
I mentioned this a moment ago as a different reply but your observations are all examples of a feedback loop perpetuating itself. Its certainly correctable. This isnt the first time it happened nor will it be the last. Its a product of some of the uglier parts of the human condition.
Absolute power corrupts - and those in power will not only seek to keep that power bit increase it. They consolidate it. Less people with power: less opposition. But this has diminishing returns... and has reset trap baked in. How? Numbers. Power moves people. As you concentrate power - you have less people to move and more people opposing that movement.
1 billionaire, 8 billion people. What do you do to maintain that power? Surveillance. Draconian rules. Control the narrative and paint yourself as necessary. The power dynamic is reaching a tipping point. Unrelated: I recall there seems to be an uptick in bunkers being built by the ultra wealthy. Puzzling.
Sound familiar? It should. History is littered with example after example.
The system breaks in the same way - every time. These aren't deitites - they aren't special. They are just another meat bag running on 80% lizard-brain firmware that is purely focused on ITS survival alone. In the end these twats engineer their own destruction. Now, while the all for one trait certainly is consistent in its consolidation of power: it still consistently maintains its loss record to the group. I'd like to think of that as an immune response to a foreign entity. In a weird way that sorta gives me hope.
No one human should have the wealth of nations let alone the wealth of one nation.
Its not the money that is the issue its the power that comes with it.
The two are tightly intertwined. Money is a powerful force multiplier. People are fundamentally still the same as we were 1000s of years ago. The same instincts that served us well then are our greatest weakness today.
When looking at relatively new and abstract societal expectations now... its not particularly shocking that the norm tends to be weighted towards short sighted individualism. We're just wired that way. I'm not excusing it: ita humanities greatest flaw. We just need to acknowledge these flaws and plan accordingly.
Where do you live? Because your "poor" country's minimal daily wage is more than the daily wage of someone on the US federal minimum wage (e.g., $7.25 x 8 hrs = $58)
We are 9th european country by size and GDP, formerly part of Soviet Republics. We have smaller military, smaller economy, smaller population than USA etc. In fact I think our entire economy barely rivals some of the states inside USA. Our older generations (those who lived under communism) see USA as a shiny utopia where nobody is ever poor or unhappy, which caused several our post-soviet generations to emigrate as far west as they could.
Money and value are interesting topics. Many of the oddities surrounding expense vs need exist as a result of scales being unfairly influenced. Billionaires aren't the root of the problem - they are the symptom of the problem. If billionaires didnt exist: that would likely be because wages, costs, and services are more fairly balanced. Less disparity - less resources to leverage to create it... and likely a much higher cost to apply that leverage. We are simply in a feedback loop in a sick system. Cancer doesn't just go away with thoughts and prayers.
The SiFi movie "In Time" staring Justin Timberlake is meh quality wise, but the premise is really interesting... That the currency of that universe is the time someone has left to live. They do an interesting job playing with how wealth inequality changes behavior of people with and without time to spare
One example I can think of is in the woodworking/DIY work I do. A common frustration of DIY projects is you often end up making many many trips to hardware stores. Often they're not even big runs, you just need an item to continue the project. You absolutely need it, and it doesn't matter if you've already been the the store twice today.
One way to reduce this problem is to buy more than you need. I once built a dust collection system out of PVC pipe and fittings. When starting, I went and bought way more parts than I knew I would need. I can afford to do this, and I knew that I would end up returning a good number of them. And I made sure to buy from a place with easy returns. But when working on a big project, I'll happily by 20-50% more of something than I'll need, just to reduce the number of emergency trips back to the hardware store. Saves so much time to just buy way more than you need and then return all the extras at the end of the project.
I enjoy the design aspect so I spend extra time challenging myself to make it in one run. I sketch everything up in detail and treat it like design me is handling the project of to diy’er me. Unexpected things that can’t really be seen don’t count like rotted joists, missing insulating, or other sub surface stuff but if project manager me fails I have to buy contractor me beer, if project manager me nails it then we celebrate with beer.
It makes things more fun for me but being able to afford what you’re talking about is a very valid point it just inspired me to share the mental game I play on myself to make things more enjoyable.
For the laundry stuff, this is a cheap solution for your day to day stuff: a washer spinner that you connect to a faucet to wash, spin water out, then hang-dry your clothes. Doesn’t help much with heavy stuff like bed sheets, but it'll do for day-to-day stuff.
It's a poverty problem because you don't have a choice but to rely on policy. That's what all of those listed things are illustrating.
Hunting for cheaper insurance instead of getting the best coverage, waiting an hour for a bus instead of calling an Uber, searching multiple flyers for the best grocery prices and coupons instead of ordering takeout. These are all "frugal" when you have the money to do otherwise.
It's poverty when you need to do those things or you just can't afford to do them.
I'm entirely in favor of raising the foundation of the social fabric, it just bugs me when busses are portrayed poorly when they're underfunded, and made to seem as if they're only a poverty choice. That is the exact sort of thinking in my city, and the bus service has suffered for decades because of it.
I wish folks would see busses as superior to personal automobiles, and they would be funded accordingly.
I'm entirely in favor of raising the foundation of the social fabric, it just bugs me when busses are portrayed poorly when they're underfunded, and made to seem as if they're only a poverty choice.
It's probably by design to stigmatize charity and public policy, and brew the sort of hyperindividualized culture that sees no problem with policies that range from "inadequate" to "truly inhumane."
It's true "thinking buses are for poor people" could lead to underfunded buses. But that leads to questions about why underfunding resources for the needy is some people's default presumption.
Another thing about being poor is that once you get a bit of money its like pouring water onto a desert because of all the deferred things. Clothes, car repairs and tires, debt, dentist, medical care, shoes. The hole people get in is deeper than it looks. A few thousand can evaporate disappointingly quickly.
I didnt file taxes one year with my kid as a dependent. So I filed two years at the same time. Got back $8K. 8 fucking K. The most money still to this day, I ever had at once. The govt took $3 for my deafaulted, unfinished degree, student loans ($1500 loan, I paid back in total via my tax returns $7500).
So I had $5K left. I used to to move near a friend who had an apt opening near him, it was the same price, but knocked 40 mins off my morning commute to work/daycare and the place was better insulated for heating costs. I didnt waste any money except for paint. The new apartment had orange and PINK walls. orange and pink, oye, I left the orange, but painted the pink, green. Moved and repaired my shitbox car, stupid jetta had been leaking coolant for a bit, me and the buddy repaired it ourselves, and I think I bought good work shoes too.
That's a marker of the upwardly mobile. At some point they reach a threshold of wealth where they can be paying other people for their time.
Those who stay poor might look at them like they're spending money recklessly to pay for the help. They don't realize the financial crossover that's happening.
I feel this. I need to send out resumes but more than half my time is doing other things and this list is I would say a pretty decent list of what sucks up the time. Whats funny is our society has all this potential labor but we rather it go to waste and atriphy.
Being poor is as close to being next to the wilderness that there is, other than homeless. None of the infrastructure we build is usable for them to be safe from the simplest threats of nature, like extreme temperatures, or bad food. Being that close is a struggle just to stay afloat.
I'm going to just say whole I fully agree with the sentiment, Transit needs to not be looked at as a part of poverty. Alot of cities have transit used by all walks of life.
I'm gonna guess the poster is in the US. In most of this country, bus=poor because in most of this country the bus service is so shitty that only people who can't afford a car will use it.
I'd argue that public transit even saves time compared to driving. I can do so much while sitting on a bus/train. I can't do anything else while driving.
Much of it is a deliberate business strategy. The lower priced options waste more time to deter those able to afford more expensive alternatives from using them.
over here it's very common to not be able to afford a personal vehicle. 1 hour commutes each way, while standing in a crowded hot bus is not only normal but even sorta decent.
Okay maybe I missed the Terry Prachett quote, but he wrote (paraphrasing) basically buying an awesome pair of boots that last takes decent coin, the people who need boots to last that long can never afford them so pay more for multiple cheap ones. Again paraphrased, but maybe it'll encourage more people to read him, think I read a few years ago but anytime anyone quotes him sounds worthwhile.
If this was said, I apologize, sort of quickly scrolled to check so may have missed. But seriously why do we make things so expensive to be less well off? Sounds downright stupid, unless you're making the dough I imagine. We should be making sure people can live comfortably especially with multiple jobs (though again not my preferred outcome, why should anyone need to work more than one full time job anyway?)
I just wish people could be comfortable with a single job even as a single parent if they need or would like to raise a kid. Though also think we're a tad overpopulated but that's not this discussion and still think if we allow it as a society then it should be possible as a single parent.
I am no kids person for the record, dated some mothers over the years but currently a dink (dual income no kids) more an 80s term.
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.
Thanks for the whole bit, he wrote it much better than I ever could and in a way that makes it simple to understand. The mark of a good writer, which from what I understand he was. Okay I need to check out more of his stuff.
Maybe one of the things he comes back in x years going, I loved those books! (After not reading for years) Mean one can hope but you least tried give a good gift. All things I've heard is he's an amusing author though don't know much beyond what I've seen comments on, oh plus Good Omens but only saw season 1 which was based on some of his work, listened to the audiobook too that was a good one. But I enjoy the premise of angels and such.
So he's been in a bit of trouble this week. I was having him do a couple chores each day before he can earn his CD player for the day. Yesterday, I decided he could earn the CD player by reading Men at Arms for 20 mins instead lol. He did it! His gripe, seems silly, but he said he hasnt read them because there arnt marked chapters, so he doesnt know when to stop! The solution was to use a timer to know when to stop ;)
tangent, I recently remembered I can make fry chicken.
Got a family pack of chicken on sale, those god aweful giant breat pieces that are not natural. One breast, pounded out to like three sandwich sized pieces. Five chicken pieces pouned out thin- was a lot of Fin chicken.
Marinated them for 20 mins in (low sodium) soy sauce. Dredged in a layer of corn starch, knocking off any extra startch so it is a thin coat. And fried em in a combo of canola/avocado oil.
then you can put any sauce you like on em. Absolutely fire. It takes some time to do this yes, but it was so much chicken. The work to me, justifies the calorie bomb fried chicken is. Its still healthy/better than fast food chicken.
why spend $30 when you can spend $15 and use up all your corn startch and the better part of an afternoon? lol ;)
People really do like rediscovering fire don't they. no shit, its a treadmill to keep you busy and keep you from growing or finding other sources of income, its to keep you under socitys thumb
I for one like public transport, where i live its often faster than driving yourself. Plus driving costs more (parking fees, gas etc..) while public transport is a rather cheap annual subscription.
I usually choose the bus over my own vehicle regardless, and Laundromats are generally too expensive unless you've got greasers or can pay to have your laundry done for you.
Greasers in reference to laundry are a colloquial term for rags and clothes covered in Grease such as Petrol, Motor Oil, etc.
You have to take them to a Laundromat that allows them because they will damage or cause residential washers and dryers to stick or smell.
I could be wrong but I think it predates the term for white working class youth in the US during the Atomic Era because it refers to what they were often seen wearing as they spent a lot of time maintaining vehicles.
I do too, but keep in mind we're outliers for whom the economic cost of taking the bus is negative. There's a thousand other little luxuries we enjoy without even noticing all of them.
... buses don't come hourly there. They come far more often. When they don't come often, the cause is petro-oligarchs and car lobbyists trying to defund public transit by bribing politicians.
A car steals more time and money; having to look for a parking spot, having to focus constantly in traffic, literally indebting yourself to car subscriptions, and so on. Cars and anti-human, stroad-focused infrastructure are a cause of poverty.
Where do buses come far more often? Do you think everyone lives in the middle of a big city with working transit?
Also no one said driving a car is good or a sign of wealth. Your right about cars being shitty, but that does not contradict the point which is made in the posted screenshot.
The only reason I got my driver's license is because the bus was over an hour late and I missed an interview. The transit agency had the gall to tell me that I should have taken the 6am bus for a noon appointment if it was so important the 9am bus was on time.
And there it hits again: the core of the issue is not the bus agency, but the lack of support for excellent public transit.
Build another car lane, it gets filled up immediately.
Build a bus lane, have buses drive regularly between areas of cities, connect cities with each other by train, and you'll see it's much better. Lack of bus lanes, bicycle lanes and paths, trains, is an abject policy failure caused by short-sighted capitalist lobbyists.
But yes, I don't blame the agency nor you. I however do blame those politicians that claim "there's not enough funding". Yeah no, the cars get a lot of funding already. From building and renewing shittons of roads to building gigantic parking spots that heat up everyday in summer, car lease fraud schemes, and more.
What man needs, is much better public transit, actually walkable cities, and bicycle lanes. China can do it and that's a big country. The EU can do it and that's not even a country, but many relatively bourgeoise democratic countries that together are as big as the US. Switzerland can do it and that has mountaineous as fuck, rural areas.
And there it hits again: the core of the issue is not the bus agency, but the lack of support for excellent public transit.
I don't control the busses. I don't dictate to the busses when they need to come. I don't dictate to the busses what routes they take, or where they will actually go. I can only accept whatever level of service they are willing to provide.
I do control my car. I do dictate to my car when it needs to go. I create the level of service I will receive.
The monetary price of a bus fare is significantly less than the cost of a car trip. But even with the absolute best public transit system, the opportunity costs vastly exceed the difference. An hour commute turns a $25/hr job into a $20/hr job. Employment and/or housing choices are limited: Job and home need to be on the same bus line, because a twice-daily transfer is just going to kill hourly earnings. And, of course, there is the premium on urban housing.
Between the time costs, the housing costs, and the restrictions on employment choices, busses are a massive cost borne primarily by the impoverished.
If you can afford a car to begin with you are already at a different level of broke than people stuck taking the bus even when transit is shitty and comes once an hour. Waiting an hour for a bus each way for your daily commute is nothing like spending a few minutes in a traffic jam (which the bus would also be subject to!) or looking for a parking spot.
Waiting an hour for a bus each way for your daily commute
Adding an hour-long commute turns an 8 hour day into a 10 hour day, for no extra pay. A $25/hr job turns into a $20/hr job.
For the bus rider, avoiding that "commuter tax" strictly limits employment options to those employers on the same line(s) as their home. Adding a transfer slashes the hourly rate even faster.
Further, those bus lines only operate in dense urban areas, where housing costs are also at an exorbitant premium for the space acquired.
The driver can choose to work in less dense areas, where traffic jams simply don't occur, parking is easy to find, and housing costs are considerably lower. The bus rider can't: buses tend not to serve such areas.
A few minutes in a traffic jam? Pah, that isn't a traffic jam. They last for far longer.
I never need to wait an hour for a bus - at most it's 20 min and that's late in the evening. Buses also aren't subject to traffic jams as they have their own bus lanes.
I think it's a big sign of societal poverty when people are condemned to cars!
That sounds nice for you, but that’s not how public transit works in most American cities. I’ve been stuck in standstill traffic in a bus, and in a lot of areas here dedicated bus lanes are rare.
When that’s the state you’re stuck in as a poor person, it doesn’t matter that there are all these negatives attached to taking a hollowed out public transit system; if you don’t have the money for a car you either take it (and spend an extra hour or two commuting each way due to delays or wait times) or you don’t go anywhere. Someone with the money to buy and maintain a car is objectively not more impoverished than the person who is scrounging for $1.75 to pay fare.
Again, that is a policy failure. Do not blame the public transit & pro-walkability/bicycleability organisations, but the car lobbies.
Also, c'mon, a car is more expensive to maintain - it impoverishes you more. You have to pay for petrol/electricity/hydrogen, have to face traffic jams and still focus during travel, find parking spots, waste a ton of your local currency on paying it off, and so on.
I understand it's a situation people are stuck into in there but still, it's an abject policy failure from elected corrupt politicians who are deep in petrol and asphalt's pockets.
Do you know the phrase that you can’t get blood from a stone? Someone who can’t even afford the car has a worse quality of life in places without good public transit, that’s why for the most part everyone who can afford it chooses to drive in those areas. I blame the state and the federal governments for improper funding, not transit agencies. Someone who can choose to spend money on driving a car instead of rent is not somehow worse off than their neighbor who can’t afford a car but still has to get to their job with an added 1-2 hours tacked on to their commute each way.
taking the bus is cheaper than owning a car. I actually took the statement to more mean that you have to go to places like the assitance office in person and its located whereever which for some means some crazy transfers and such that makes it an all day and long day affair.
A working horse; one who is trained to pull a plow, costs a minimum of $3,000.00 in the USA today. Also, there's no such thing as 'wilderness.' There's plenty of uncultivated land, but it's all owned by the government or private interests who would be averse to you showing up and planting crops.
I suggest you go to the local library and get access to the interwebs, so you can check the facts before you start making silly suggestions.
Just get a small gift or loan of a few million dollars from your parents. Honestly, why don't more of the poor think of this? Clearly they are not very smart.
So destroy more forest to grow food for one person? May I suggest an alternative. We protect the little forest that remains and instead relax zoning laws to allow people to grow food on the countless acres of grassy yard space/land we already have. Grass is an outdated non native crop originally grown by rich assholes as a staus symbol to say "I have so much I do not need to use my land for anything productive."
You don't have to tear down a forest to grow food. There are far more options out there for growing food than conventional modern farming. I totally agree about lawns, though. Lawns are stupid.
If you believe it's that simple, you should look into it.
The biggest problems are water access and soil quality. Generally speaking, all of the land that is good for farming is not wilderness, it's already owned and in use by somebody. If you have to spend money to irrigate and more money to make the soil into something that can grow food, you'll be broke long before you're self-sustaining.
And, spoiler alert; even if you manage to get land with water access, you are going to go through hell to get the rights to use that water in any meaningful way. Try something as simple as rain water collection with mout the rights? Best case is a massive fine.
182 replies
Do we have data on how much free time and external costs the poor have been burdened with over time?
I could see it going either way (and this is presumably monstrously tricky to account fairly). My lived experience is that many folks have things they'd prefer to do than organizing (I'm looking at phones and social media), over and above the impositions on their lives. But I'd like to know that I'm wrong.
Not exactly the tweet, but dropping this again here because of the title.
This might not apply anymore though since it seems capitalism found out about it and companies realized they could make the $50 boots as trash as the $10 boots and the rich wouldn’t think twice about throwing them out at the same rate so the two options now are spending $10 a year or $50 a year on boots.
A tough lesson I learned when I got worked my way into the middle class was that all the “expensive version that will last you” items are a thing of the past.
Its ultimately the lack of economic flexibility.
When us poors run into trouble, we have to deal with it immediately, without a chance to plan for it or save up for it or make other arrangements, so we have to buy the cheap boots, because we don't have the financial buffer to absorb the impact of the 50 dollar boots on our budgets, even knowing it will save us money in the long run, because we're living so threadbare that money is stretched to the limit.
Waiting for buses and other public transport especially. In college I had no car and continued working a part time job that I previously borrowed my parents' car to commute to. My options were: spending an hour and a half to commute taking a bus with a reasonable schedule but I'd have to walk over a mile alongside a busy road to my job, or spend three hours to commute due to how two route schedules matched up to drop me off at the entrance to the shopping center.
Each of those options was one way, and this was before smart phones. I wasn't getting anything done in that time besides listening to music and maybe reading a book while on the bus itself.
And then I learned that on Saturdays, over half the time the bus just didn't fucking show up at the stop where I got on, and the support phone line would just fucking lie about it.
Plus, if I had a vehicle, the commute would have been only 20 minutes in bad traffic.
Will say, the regular distance power walking helped keep me in great shape though.
I wonder how infrastructure would change if companies were required to reimburse valid claims of mileage or time spent (not the bus/train fare, but paying your wage for the time spent to get to work).
This could be a fantastic idea, and maybe a hammer blow to the "return to office" bullshit.
Sure, I'll go into the office. Pay me 25% more to account for the travel time.
While the intent is good, as written it would probably have the unintended consequence of making it harder to get a job if you happen to live far away from the workplace, which I don't think is the way to go
I knew as I wrote it that it would be far more complex than just setting a single law down. But the fact that such cost of time and money just to get to work exists suggests the burden isn't balanced well. The case you mention of distance to a job is more a symptom of the problem of not being more localized for everything. Not just an American problem, but definitely something we deal with outside of a few major urban areas. A pay adjustment doesn't fix that, it just is a rough patch that wouldn't work for some.
In all honesty I think it's connected to the housing crisis bleeding into basically every other political issue, because of how damn massive of a problem it is
According to a video I've seen, actors get paid for their commutes
Only outside the TMZ, which is why basically everything in LA is filmed within it.
An interesting little quirk for sure
I had a job 2.5 miles from my apartment. There is a bus stop on the corner of my apartment, there is a bus stop next to the job. According to the website it was 3 hours to commute by bus to get there...
I wouldn't be surprised if that bus included connections to other lines on top of it all.
I had to commute by bus for a while. The transfer is where my anxiety peaked. Being miles away from home and hoping not to miss a second bus just to make it to work on time meant my brain was on high alert the whole time.
Bus transfers are the worst… In my city, we have a pretty good network of busses … IF your goal is the city center. All the routes just do a spiderweb towards the center. You’re on your own if you needed to go between neighborhoods.
Bicycle? Others take dedicated time to do workouts. This is basically the perfect distance for a short workout (and time in between commuting is also basically optimal for recovery according to research). Keeps you fit and healthy without thinking about doing more sport (which is still a good idea). I'm even faster on that kind of distance than a car.
I could never drive the bus/train, commuting by bicycle is too fun and way more flexible (even than a car, considering less options for driving and parking). The distance would have to be larger than 20 miles (or non-"freedom" units: 32 km) that I would consider something else...
2.5 miles is thankfully about 15 minutes by bike - less if you're pushing it or running an ebike
I actually considered getting an ebike once to get to work, but then started mapping out a good route to take and realized the infrastructure isn't designed for that kind of travel. Bonus, it would be at night, so statistically someone in a car would be a threat to me eventually, because bike lanes are a joke.
I don't know your distance for commuting. But I consider the bicycle the most superior form of commuting for distances below 10 miles(16km) (personally would even cycle more than double that).
It's even cheaper, keeps you healthy and often is even faster than a car, considering parking, traffic lights/jams etc.. I also enjoy doing that so another advantage.
Depends on geography
In a more mountine town ive lived in with a bike you can be very fast downslope
Upslope?
20 min for 2km and you will be sweaty as hell at the end
10 and sweaty as hell if you are fit
Yeah plus most jobs don't like you showing up dripping and smelling like a varsity locker room.
My locale even tried to build in employee showers to encourage bike commuting, but it hits 110⁰F outside and there's not a cloud in the sky, like LOL dudes you gotta be kidding.
I'd love to live in a place where the humble bicycle was viable beyond recreation.
I can recommend a cooling west for these cases. They are quite effective on the bicycle (moving air enhances the effect). I usually don't care much about a little bit of sweat, I just turn the ventilation on max then at my office. We even have a shower, but never used it... I think sweat is overrated and often an excuse to not cycle...
Ive run into this too. How many times Id just walk to work for the 1.5hours instead of taking the bus that took just as long, but would drop me off at work either 2hours early, or 15mins late. so Id just walk it.
It was glorious the day I finally got a bike.
You know what’s also wild?
Paying Elon Musk for a blue checkmark.
Giving No Kings vibes.
Same with being disabled, growing up I thought disabled people just got helped by everyone in society with everything. Turns out most of the time it's "do what you were doing before except harder."
Or if you're too mentally ill and in so much pain that working is hard but society deems you worthless
The secret is to already have a job that doesn't notice you're not working
Is it hard to get a job in the Canadian Senate?
Capitalism deems them unexploitable, they still have worth in society
<3
Being poor is super expensive. When you don't have enough money in your bank account they'll charge you a monthly fee. When you're too poor to have an account, you have to go to a check cashing place and pay to get paid. Too poor to have awesome credit? You have to pay higher interest fees and larger deposits.
Use that check to open a bank account. Virtually every bank will give you a free account if you deposit your paycheck with them.
That's not true if you have bad enough credit or are a migrant worker. There's an entire check cashing industry based on taking advantage of people who can't get bank accounts and charging outrageous fees.
Many banks specifically offer services to people with bad credit and bad banking histories. Here is a Forbes article about them with a list of ones they recommend. And another article if you aren't convinced.
There is an industry around this because people keep spreading misinformation about not being able to get a bank account if you have bad credit; resulting in people not looking into getting a bank account. Stop spreading misinformation, it hurts people.
I've never understood check cashing places.
I thought people only went to them because they didn't want to wait for checks to clear, or they didn't want a paper trail on a checking account, because it would get automatically garnished for child support.
Are you saying that someone could actually be so poor that a bank will refuse them from opening a checking account? What risk is there to the bank if it goes empty?
If you really don't have any money other than your paycheck, you can open that bank account....with the check you need to deposit. Virtually every bank will give you a free account if you deposit your paycheck with them.
A bank account is something everyone can have. This idea you can be too poor for a bank account is a myth.
Ive cashed paychecks at one point using these placss. I dont think I had a bank account at the time. To open an account you have to deposit money. I couldnt afford to just leave money in an account in any given week, so I didnt have one. So I used to cash them at Stop n Shop, a grocery store. They would do it for a small fee. Then one day, they said they wouldnt cash my checks anymore, because my credit was bad? It made no sense to me at the time.
So for about a year, I used the local sketch ball check cashing place. I think they took 8% or something. Later in life, there was a time I just cashed them at walmart. Damn, there was a time in my life I was too broke to have a bank account. oye.
One thing is financial literacy.
A lot of people come from a cycle of poverty where no one around them can explain why it's a good idea to have a bank account.
Also, there are predatory banks that demand minimum amounts to start any account. If you don't have $200.00 to start an account it's hard to start an account.
Back in the day, banks encouraged little kids to start bank accounts with just a few dollars. I had a bank book when I was 12. Those days are long gone. I went to Bank of America with a check from a BOA account and they wanted to charge me. I could wait to get to my own bank, but other folks wouldn't have that option.
We also used to have a 70% wealth tax in those “good ol days” pre Reagan
Reagan was a good family man who believed in small town values and honesty.
He threw away his wife for a bimbo after moving to Hollywood.
I understand your comment to be snark. From what I remember:
Reagan was a commie scare guy who blacklisted his enemies in the screenactors guild if they didnt share his conservative viewpoint.
Reaganomics was flatly stupid or a con job, take your pick-- just tax cuts for the rich that were supposed to trickle down and never did, and massive swathes of dergulation, including environmental rules. His deregulation of the banking industry caused the savings and loan crisis that cost a lot of people their life savings, and destroyed the US economy for a good long time and caused a recession.
Iran Contra happened on his watch (although he claims he knew nothing about it). The CIA were literally flying pallets of cocaine into florida air force bases on private cargo planes and selling them on our streets to make money. I find it hard to beleive that a single lowly colonel could have run all of it, using the presidents CIA.
He was a bad B-list actor. His movies sucked really bad, even back then.
He was reportedly a closetted bisexual (with Howard cook before he was married) whose shame steered him to slow walk AIDs treatments for 6 years while his surgeon general screamed for him to allow it, resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands who needed treatment during an explosion of AIDS.
The only good thing about him was that he wasnt under AIPAC's thumb. But he still gets an F on policy and basic decency, although republicans and dems both adored his grandfather-leader BS act. The man was a complete idiot, as are his followers.
https://youtu.be/lFV1uT-ihDo
Oliver North 'American Dad"
never seen that one, pretty good!
Credit Unions for example require a share purchase usually so while it's usually quite small some people can't afford to loose even $5.
Sometimes it's also debt, guy owes his normal bank a fuckload of money so uses the cash checking to cash his check, he might lose a bit in fees but it's probably less than what the bank would of taken. I've seen alot of contractors in this situation.
Is that what they mean when they say money's tight?
They don't want to risk people overdrafting and just changing banks.
Then don't give them overdraft? I bet a lot of them don't even want it and would rather it just reject any payments that would put it in the negative because they charge extra for using overdraft, too.
You don't understand. They WANT to de-bank poor people.
Nah I understand, showing some problem has a simple solution that gets ignored shows that that problem isn't the real problem.
Banks have a separate system, like the credit rating system, they use just for depositors. Credit scores reflect the risk to lend money to you. But the banks keep other scores and lists of depositors. Too many overdrafts or transactions their AI considers suspicious? You can be blacklisted from opening an account at any bank.
There's not a high risk of making much money off then, so it's considered a waste of time and resources
This is what I point out whenever someone tries to tell me, "The only fair thing in life is everyone gets 24 hours in a day."
That doesn't mean shit when someone with a private jet can be on a different continent in hours.
"We all have the same 24 hours in a day"
I fucking hate that saying so much. I've started telling people just because you and everyone else at the marathon might have the same 23 miles to go, when 9/10 of you are shackled to a heavy steel ball, and at least half are dragging 2 or 3, then that distance means fuck all.
A marathon isn’t that hard. Just buy a car!
I like to use a private jet. I can be so much more productive!
Someone to prepare your meals and do your shopping and run your kids around. All of these things take time that adds up in a week.
Literally why wealthy people pay exorbitant amounts of money to save time. It's one thing they can't buy back once it's spent.
The time theft has a far reach. I’ve worked with kids who’ve gone inpatient for mental health, acting out in school, etc. Why? Because mom isn’t there. It’s not willful neglect. It’s neglect through not neglecting her motherly duties by working 2-3 jobs to keep the lights on and shoes on her child’s feet.
Time is a key reason we need to be paid more, have a much higher minimum wage, though it isn’t often mentioned.
That's it right there. The politicians are always rambling "We need jobs."
No. We need money, which might come from decent jobs.
"Jobs for jobs' sake" is how we have mental health crises from countless practically-parentless households because everybody's desperately, constantly working in needlessly stressful conditions.
Jobs are why most of us have no meaningful connections shortly after our highest level of schooling, because everyone's on wacky schedules and has no time for anyone but the shallowest relationships with whomever they happen to be stuck working with.
Jobs gave us broken homes and skyrocketing suicide rates.
Jobs can shove right off, for all they've taken from us, and our "bosses" can be sunk into the deep right along with 'em.
I was fortunate. We were considered poor but not so poor that mom wasn’t home with us. Thrift clothes and homemade clothes (a very cheap option in the 80s) got us teased mercilessly, but the parents were present.
There have been articles lately about the young generations aging faster. It’s always been noteworthy in medicine. People, on the worst case scenarios, looking 60 when they’re 40. Not from outdoor life but just hard life. Given the overt stress the younger gen’s are under on all sides it fits.
Minimum wage isn't going to cut it anymore. We need UBI.
Democracy is the idea that political authority is derived from the people. The government's power to levy taxes and conduct its business is taken from We The People; We The People should be fairly compensated for the use of that power. We should each be paid a citizenship dividend of 75% of the current poverty level, before we put a single hour on the clock.
Below current poverty levels? We've already got the technology to provide for everyone according to their needs.
Current Poverty line for a single person is $16000. $12000 is 75% of the current single-person household. $12,000/yr, free and clear, before you leave for work on Monday morning. You're above the poverty line by noon on Monday.
You and your partner are both receiving the same UBI. Together, you're receiving $24000/yr. That's 110% of the current poverty rate for a household of two. You're above the line just from your UBI.
For you, your partner, and your two kids, that's $48000/yr. That's 145% of the poverty line for a household of 4.
Does that still seem unreasonable? I'd be ecstatic over 25%.
That still feels awfully low.
Even getting a single dollar each year would be nicer than the zero I get now, but I'd rather get fully reimbursed for letting people monopolize my share of the earth. They have no right to claim that for themselves in the first place.
If UBI was intended to be the single, primary source of income, I'd agree that it is too low. But it isn't. The economic purpose is, basically, to remove human need and desperation from contract negotiations and labor agreements.
It's easy to exploit a drowning man. UBI is intended to keep your head above water, so you can always afford to walk away from a shitty boss.
Why should they have to work for somebody else if they don't want to? If I'm single and looking at getting paid below the poverty level, then my head is not above water.
We're the rightful landlords, getting paid less than the sum of all rents.
Who said anything about working for someone else? You're free to conduct your own affairs in any manner you want to. I, personally, want to see that you are compensated for the use of your political authority in our democratic system of government. You don't have to accept that compensation. If you really want nothing to do with any sort of democratic society, you're free to withdraw from it entirely.
But that's pretty much the extent of my interest. You acquire your political power by virtue of being human; the most you are "owed" for the government's use of your political power is that which you need to continue being a human. (Technically, you are owed less: You already receive the benefits of law and order that arise from the government's use of your political powers. The monetary value of the rule of law could be deducted from your "citizenship dividend" and it would still be fair and reasonable.)
UBI does not replace work. It removes the exploitative factors from work. It enables you to take on the risk of working for yourself. Today, you might need 20 hours of wages a week just to live, and you can only devote another 20 hours a week toward your preferred project before you are considered "overworked". With UBI, your "just to live" hours are zero, and you get to devote all your time to your preferred project. That might be gainful employment; that might be charitable work; that might be artistry or writing; that might be gooning 16 hours a day and playing CoD all night.
This "rightful landlords" stuff you're talking about might arise from some other economic system, but not from a "citizenship dividend". Not from "UBI". You are "made whole" for the conveyance of your political powers as a human when your essential human needs are minimally met; that's all UBI is for.
What you seem to be describing is more like society claiming "eminent domain" over all land, taxing everyone who uses the land, and paying that tax out to everyone. In which case, yes, you'll receive something for everyone else's land use. But you'll also owe something for your own land use. You'll owe a lot of money on the valuable residential land where you lay your head. You'll receive a pittance on the cheap agricultural and industrial land used to feed and clothe you. The net flow of money will be opposite the way you think it will be: The farmer and the industrialist will be receiving more than they are paying, for utilizing land that is useless to the overwhelming majority. (Commercialists will pay more than you, though...Commercial land is vastly higher value than residential, which is more valuable than industrial, which is much more valuable than agricultural, which is more valuable than mining lands)
The other thing is how expensive being poor is. Laundry is like 3 dollars a load last I checked. Buy cheap shoes, expect them to last 6 months max. There are food options if you have time to cook but combined with the original poster you won't and you don't have transportation so delivery is only option...
$3 a load? Whoa.
It takes about $17 for a single load at the laundromats near me, both washing and drying. Going once a week, that's over $800 a year.
Which is one reason I've started washing clothes in a 5-gallon (about 19 liters) bucket at home. It sucks, but it saves me money and I get a work out from it. I'd like to get a small machine I could use in an apartment, but where I live it wouldn't be safe to have packages sitting outside all day and I try to avoid big box stores, so I feel pretty screwed.
You might want to look into “portable washing machines” - they’re under 100$ comes in a small box and are good for things like socks and undies. Regarding the packages, if they are shipping with ups, theres a service where you can choose an alternative delivery location, usually a place like a corner store, or with fedex, a print shop.
when youre talking to poor people, $100 isnt chump change. Im glad these things exsist now. 20 years ago I could have used one.
wringing out clothes from a tub is absolutley the first thing I did that lead the my carpal tunnel.
Wtf 17 dollars? The laundry mats around me are like 3 dollars to wash and free dry.
Is there an Amazon Locker near you? Those are pretty handy for safe package holding.
I’ve known people to be on hold for 6-8 hours for multiple days with the local food stamp office without being able to get in touch with anyone. At one point the automatic message when you called was ‘too many people are calling, hang up.’
Poverty is more expensive than anything any millionaire or billionaire could buy. Fuck the rich.
The biggest punishment you could enact on those monsters is to knock them all the way down to working class.
They couldn't cut it in the real world, with a real job. They'd lose their mind having to respect anyone else.
Who knows, it could even possibly reform them.
Fun napkin math fact: If we divvied up the top... 5 wealthiest billionaires net worth... that'd get every living man, woman, and child on earth a cool $250 ish.
Sure - its not very much but it certainly does make you think. What if...
The idea of wealth redistribution is in stripping power from the very rich. If you are rich, you influence politics in a way that benefits you by not caring about others.
The problem with Bill Gates' poly vaccine in Africa is not in the fact that it didn't save children, in fact it did. The problem is that measles takes more children's lives in Africa by an order of magnitude and measles vaccination would've saved much more.
Now add to the picture the recent decisions: internet surveillance (age verification), ignoring the Paris agreement, data centers built everywhere. I guess a lot of people would oppose these, but their voices are not heard.
I mentioned this a moment ago as a different reply but your observations are all examples of a feedback loop perpetuating itself. Its certainly correctable. This isnt the first time it happened nor will it be the last. Its a product of some of the uglier parts of the human condition.
Absolute power corrupts - and those in power will not only seek to keep that power bit increase it. They consolidate it. Less people with power: less opposition. But this has diminishing returns... and has reset trap baked in. How? Numbers. Power moves people. As you concentrate power - you have less people to move and more people opposing that movement.
1 billionaire, 8 billion people. What do you do to maintain that power? Surveillance. Draconian rules. Control the narrative and paint yourself as necessary. The power dynamic is reaching a tipping point. Unrelated: I recall there seems to be an uptick in bunkers being built by the ultra wealthy. Puzzling.
Sound familiar? It should. History is littered with example after example.
The system breaks in the same way - every time. These aren't deitites - they aren't special. They are just another meat bag running on 80% lizard-brain firmware that is purely focused on ITS survival alone. In the end these twats engineer their own destruction. Now, while the all for one trait certainly is consistent in its consolidation of power: it still consistently maintains its loss record to the group. I'd like to think of that as an immune response to a foreign entity. In a weird way that sorta gives me hope.
No one human should have the wealth of nations let alone the wealth of one nation. Its not the money that is the issue its the power that comes with it.
The two are tightly intertwined. Money is a powerful force multiplier. People are fundamentally still the same as we were 1000s of years ago. The same instincts that served us well then are our greatest weakness today.
When looking at relatively new and abstract societal expectations now... its not particularly shocking that the norm tends to be weighted towards short sighted individualism. We're just wired that way. I'm not excusing it: ita humanities greatest flaw. We just need to acknowledge these flaws and plan accordingly.
And that's not at lot...for people in the US, like a month of groceries for 2 adults. Not touching other actual bills.
But in developing countries, $250 could rival a large percentage of their monthly wages.
250 USD is in my country about a daily wage of high-level specialist, I mean - top 5% of people who live from working.
63 USD is a minimal daily wage in my poor country.
Where do you live? Because your "poor" country's minimal daily wage is more than the daily wage of someone on the US federal minimum wage (e.g., $7.25 x 8 hrs = $58)
Poland.
We are 9th european country by size and GDP, formerly part of Soviet Republics. We have smaller military, smaller economy, smaller population than USA etc. In fact I think our entire economy barely rivals some of the states inside USA. Our older generations (those who lived under communism) see USA as a shiny utopia where nobody is ever poor or unhappy, which caused several our post-soviet generations to emigrate as far west as they could.
Money and value are interesting topics. Many of the oddities surrounding expense vs need exist as a result of scales being unfairly influenced. Billionaires aren't the root of the problem - they are the symptom of the problem. If billionaires didnt exist: that would likely be because wages, costs, and services are more fairly balanced. Less disparity - less resources to leverage to create it... and likely a much higher cost to apply that leverage. We are simply in a feedback loop in a sick system. Cancer doesn't just go away with thoughts and prayers.
Many workers get paid the equivalent of $120 a month or lower
In Zambia, average monthly wage is 130$.
Why not divide up ALL of their wealth?
Most of that would be in stocks you can't sell at once or they immediately lose value.
While yes, my napkin math may have simplified things to produce a workable ish value:
The numbers purpose was to provide perspective - which I feel worked reasonably well.
The SiFi movie "In Time" staring Justin Timberlake is meh quality wise, but the premise is really interesting... That the currency of that universe is the time someone has left to live. They do an interesting job playing with how wealth inequality changes behavior of people with and without time to spare
It's a good movie, it just could have been done way better.
Time poverty is a totally real and utterly overlooked hindrance
One example I can think of is in the woodworking/DIY work I do. A common frustration of DIY projects is you often end up making many many trips to hardware stores. Often they're not even big runs, you just need an item to continue the project. You absolutely need it, and it doesn't matter if you've already been the the store twice today.
One way to reduce this problem is to buy more than you need. I once built a dust collection system out of PVC pipe and fittings. When starting, I went and bought way more parts than I knew I would need. I can afford to do this, and I knew that I would end up returning a good number of them. And I made sure to buy from a place with easy returns. But when working on a big project, I'll happily by 20-50% more of something than I'll need, just to reduce the number of emergency trips back to the hardware store. Saves so much time to just buy way more than you need and then return all the extras at the end of the project.
I enjoy the design aspect so I spend extra time challenging myself to make it in one run. I sketch everything up in detail and treat it like design me is handling the project of to diy’er me. Unexpected things that can’t really be seen don’t count like rotted joists, missing insulating, or other sub surface stuff but if project manager me fails I have to buy contractor me beer, if project manager me nails it then we celebrate with beer.
It makes things more fun for me but being able to afford what you’re talking about is a very valid point it just inspired me to share the mental game I play on myself to make things more enjoyable.
It's ruinning my friendships. I can't even fully be there for peolle, and they resent that.
For the laundry stuff, this is a cheap solution for your day to day stuff: a washer spinner that you connect to a faucet to wash, spin water out, then hang-dry your clothes. Doesn’t help much with heavy stuff like bed sheets, but it'll do for day-to-day stuff.
Waiting for busses isn't a poverty problem, it's a policy problem.
It's both.
In fact, poverty itself is a policy choice of forced deprivation.
It's a poverty problem because you don't have a choice but to rely on policy. That's what all of those listed things are illustrating.
Hunting for cheaper insurance instead of getting the best coverage, waiting an hour for a bus instead of calling an Uber, searching multiple flyers for the best grocery prices and coupons instead of ordering takeout. These are all "frugal" when you have the money to do otherwise.
It's poverty when you need to do those things or you just can't afford to do them.
I see your point, well put.
I'm entirely in favor of raising the foundation of the social fabric, it just bugs me when busses are portrayed poorly when they're underfunded, and made to seem as if they're only a poverty choice. That is the exact sort of thinking in my city, and the bus service has suffered for decades because of it.
I wish folks would see busses as superior to personal automobiles, and they would be funded accordingly.
It's probably by design to stigmatize charity and public policy, and brew the sort of hyperindividualized culture that sees no problem with policies that range from "inadequate" to "truly inhumane."
It's true "thinking buses are for poor people" could lead to underfunded buses. But that leads to questions about why underfunding resources for the needy is some people's default presumption.
Another thing about being poor is that once you get a bit of money its like pouring water onto a desert because of all the deferred things. Clothes, car repairs and tires, debt, dentist, medical care, shoes. The hole people get in is deeper than it looks. A few thousand can evaporate disappointingly quickly.
I didnt file taxes one year with my kid as a dependent. So I filed two years at the same time. Got back $8K. 8 fucking K. The most money still to this day, I ever had at once. The govt took $3 for my deafaulted, unfinished degree, student loans ($1500 loan, I paid back in total via my tax returns $7500).
So I had $5K left. I used to to move near a friend who had an apt opening near him, it was the same price, but knocked 40 mins off my morning commute to work/daycare and the place was better insulated for heating costs. I didnt waste any money except for paint. The new apartment had orange and PINK walls. orange and pink, oye, I left the orange, but painted the pink, green. Moved and repaired my shitbox car, stupid jetta had been leaking coolant for a bit, me and the buddy repaired it ourselves, and I think I bought good work shoes too.
all the money was gone in about a month.
If I've learned anything, it's that bad public transportation is a conscious choice by the government.
That's a marker of the upwardly mobile. At some point they reach a threshold of wealth where they can be paying other people for their time.
Those who stay poor might look at them like they're spending money recklessly to pay for the help. They don't realize the financial crossover that's happening.
Oh we do
It really is time we figure out how to level the playing field.
Step 1: general strike.
How if we can't get time to strike, and can't save enough to survive without income?
It's technically where mutual aid comes in but I haven't seen much of that when we are all poor together.
We don't eat money. We eat food.
The reason we all need money to eat right now is that we all continue playing the capitalists' shitty game
While that's true capitalism also pushes a lot of bills that can't be paid in food. Rent? Want an avocado?
General strike means not paying rent in addition to not working.
They can't evict us all. Not enough sheriffs.
Solidarity is more than just liking each others memes. We can take care of each other if enough of us break the capitalist spell at the same time.
But when?
I feel this. I need to send out resumes but more than half my time is doing other things and this list is I would say a pretty decent list of what sucks up the time. Whats funny is our society has all this potential labor but we rather it go to waste and atriphy.
Being poor is as close to being next to the wilderness that there is, other than homeless. None of the infrastructure we build is usable for them to be safe from the simplest threats of nature, like extreme temperatures, or bad food. Being that close is a struggle just to stay afloat.
I'm going to just say whole I fully agree with the sentiment, Transit needs to not be looked at as a part of poverty. Alot of cities have transit used by all walks of life.
I'm gonna guess the poster is in the US. In most of this country, bus=poor because in most of this country the bus service is so shitty that only people who can't afford a car will use it.
I feel so bad for Americans.
Yeah being in the imperial core during the empire's decline is generally not a good thing.
Weirdo idealists represent! ✊️
I'd argue that public transit even saves time compared to driving. I can do so much while sitting on a bus/train. I can't do anything else while driving.
Much of it is a deliberate business strategy. The lower priced options waste more time to deter those able to afford more expensive alternatives from using them.
over here it's very common to not be able to afford a personal vehicle. 1 hour commutes each way, while standing in a crowded hot bus is not only normal but even sorta decent.
at least we have shitty broken sidewalks.
It's expensive being poor
Okay maybe I missed the Terry Prachett quote, but he wrote (paraphrasing) basically buying an awesome pair of boots that last takes decent coin, the people who need boots to last that long can never afford them so pay more for multiple cheap ones. Again paraphrased, but maybe it'll encourage more people to read him, think I read a few years ago but anytime anyone quotes him sounds worthwhile.
If this was said, I apologize, sort of quickly scrolled to check so may have missed. But seriously why do we make things so expensive to be less well off? Sounds downright stupid, unless you're making the dough I imagine. We should be making sure people can live comfortably especially with multiple jobs (though again not my preferred outcome, why should anyone need to work more than one full time job anyway?)
I just wish people could be comfortable with a single job even as a single parent if they need or would like to raise a kid. Though also think we're a tad overpopulated but that's not this discussion and still think if we allow it as a society then it should be possible as a single parent.
I am no kids person for the record, dated some mothers over the years but currently a dink (dual income no kids) more an 80s term.
The original, excellent passage:
Thanks for the whole bit, he wrote it much better than I ever could and in a way that makes it simple to understand. The mark of a good writer, which from what I understand he was. Okay I need to check out more of his stuff.
I bought my son three Terry Prachett books two Christmas' ago, including Men at Arms, because I hear so much about them on here.
He hasnt read them yet and it makes me sad.
Maybe one of the things he comes back in x years going, I loved those books! (After not reading for years) Mean one can hope but you least tried give a good gift. All things I've heard is he's an amusing author though don't know much beyond what I've seen comments on, oh plus Good Omens but only saw season 1 which was based on some of his work, listened to the audiobook too that was a good one. But I enjoy the premise of angels and such.
So he's been in a bit of trouble this week. I was having him do a couple chores each day before he can earn his CD player for the day. Yesterday, I decided he could earn the CD player by reading Men at Arms for 20 mins instead lol. He did it! His gripe, seems silly, but he said he hasnt read them because there arnt marked chapters, so he doesnt know when to stop! The solution was to use a timer to know when to stop ;)
Yes he was a fascist. Also our buddy Epstein was involved in Iran contra https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/jeffrey-epstein-iran-contra-planes-leslie-wexner-pottinger-leese-arms-weapons-smuggling
A brief personal report about fried chicken prices in America...
Also, I am seeing many items suffering from shrinkflation. Terrific. 😒
tangent, I recently remembered I can make fry chicken.
Got a family pack of chicken on sale, those god aweful giant breat pieces that are not natural. One breast, pounded out to like three sandwich sized pieces. Five chicken pieces pouned out thin- was a lot of Fin chicken. Marinated them for 20 mins in (low sodium) soy sauce. Dredged in a layer of corn starch, knocking off any extra startch so it is a thin coat. And fried em in a combo of canola/avocado oil.
then you can put any sauce you like on em. Absolutely fire. It takes some time to do this yes, but it was so much chicken. The work to me, justifies the calorie bomb fried chicken is. Its still healthy/better than fast food chicken.
why spend $30 when you can spend $15 and use up all your corn startch and the better part of an afternoon? lol ;)
tanget /end
People really do like rediscovering fire don't they. no shit, its a treadmill to keep you busy and keep you from growing or finding other sources of income, its to keep you under socitys thumb
And the mecical bills one accrues for treatment of the ailments that are brought on by an immune system weakened by constant stress.
I for one like public transport, where i live its often faster than driving yourself. Plus driving costs more (parking fees, gas etc..) while public transport is a rather cheap annual subscription.
I usually choose the bus over my own vehicle regardless, and Laundromats are generally too expensive unless you've got greasers or can pay to have your laundry done for you.
greasers ?
I've seen that term used for some White youth and also Mexicans.
What does it mean here?
Greasers in reference to laundry are a colloquial term for rags and clothes covered in Grease such as Petrol, Motor Oil, etc.
You have to take them to a Laundromat that allows them because they will damage or cause residential washers and dryers to stick or smell.
I could be wrong but I think it predates the term for white working class youth in the US during the Atomic Era because it refers to what they were often seen wearing as they spent a lot of time maintaining vehicles.
DUUUUDE....I thought it was about all the hair product they used LOL!
That, too.
Thanks.
I do too, but keep in mind we're outliers for whom the economic cost of taking the bus is negative. There's a thousand other little luxuries we enjoy without even noticing all of them.
Time is money to money is time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_-1l_SlA7c
It’s by design
Better living is brought about by better technology, not having more money
are phones and social media making the world better? is ai?
Yeah all these machines were supposed to have us working ten hours a week by now for a living wage what's that about?!
Waiting for buses is not poverty. Being in traffic jams and stuck to using a car is, however.
Besides the point. Having no choice but to wait for the hourly bus could be one of the many time stealers if your poor.
... buses don't come hourly there. They come far more often. When they don't come often, the cause is petro-oligarchs and car lobbyists trying to defund public transit by bribing politicians.
A car steals more time and money; having to look for a parking spot, having to focus constantly in traffic, literally indebting yourself to car subscriptions, and so on. Cars and anti-human, stroad-focused infrastructure are a cause of poverty.
Where do buses come far more often? Do you think everyone lives in the middle of a big city with working transit? Also no one said driving a car is good or a sign of wealth. Your right about cars being shitty, but that does not contradict the point which is made in the posted screenshot.
The only reason I got my driver's license is because the bus was over an hour late and I missed an interview. The transit agency had the gall to tell me that I should have taken the 6am bus for a noon appointment if it was so important the 9am bus was on time.
And there it hits again: the core of the issue is not the bus agency, but the lack of support for excellent public transit.
Build another car lane, it gets filled up immediately.
Build a bus lane, have buses drive regularly between areas of cities, connect cities with each other by train, and you'll see it's much better. Lack of bus lanes, bicycle lanes and paths, trains, is an abject policy failure caused by short-sighted capitalist lobbyists.
But yes, I don't blame the agency nor you. I however do blame those politicians that claim "there's not enough funding". Yeah no, the cars get a lot of funding already. From building and renewing shittons of roads to building gigantic parking spots that heat up everyday in summer, car lease fraud schemes, and more.
What man needs, is much better public transit, actually walkable cities, and bicycle lanes. China can do it and that's a big country. The EU can do it and that's not even a country, but many relatively bourgeoise democratic countries that together are as big as the US. Switzerland can do it and that has mountaineous as fuck, rural areas.
I don't control the busses. I don't dictate to the busses when they need to come. I don't dictate to the busses what routes they take, or where they will actually go. I can only accept whatever level of service they are willing to provide.
I do control my car. I do dictate to my car when it needs to go. I create the level of service I will receive.
The monetary price of a bus fare is significantly less than the cost of a car trip. But even with the absolute best public transit system, the opportunity costs vastly exceed the difference. An hour commute turns a $25/hr job into a $20/hr job. Employment and/or housing choices are limited: Job and home need to be on the same bus line, because a twice-daily transfer is just going to kill hourly earnings. And, of course, there is the premium on urban housing.
Between the time costs, the housing costs, and the restrictions on employment choices, busses are a massive cost borne primarily by the impoverished.
Most people do live in cities, yes. I live in a town with like 'only' 20k people and yet there's decent public transit.
Cars and their lobbies are the problem.
Not the problem OP was posting about.
My 20k people town only has hourly bus service.
If you can afford a car to begin with you are already at a different level of broke than people stuck taking the bus even when transit is shitty and comes once an hour. Waiting an hour for a bus each way for your daily commute is nothing like spending a few minutes in a traffic jam (which the bus would also be subject to!) or looking for a parking spot.
Adding an hour-long commute turns an 8 hour day into a 10 hour day, for no extra pay. A $25/hr job turns into a $20/hr job.
For the bus rider, avoiding that "commuter tax" strictly limits employment options to those employers on the same line(s) as their home. Adding a transfer slashes the hourly rate even faster.
Further, those bus lines only operate in dense urban areas, where housing costs are also at an exorbitant premium for the space acquired.
The driver can choose to work in less dense areas, where traffic jams simply don't occur, parking is easy to find, and housing costs are considerably lower. The bus rider can't: buses tend not to serve such areas.
A few minutes in a traffic jam? Pah, that isn't a traffic jam. They last for far longer.
I never need to wait an hour for a bus - at most it's 20 min and that's late in the evening. Buses also aren't subject to traffic jams as they have their own bus lanes.
I think it's a big sign of societal poverty when people are condemned to cars!
That sounds nice for you, but that’s not how public transit works in most American cities. I’ve been stuck in standstill traffic in a bus, and in a lot of areas here dedicated bus lanes are rare.
When that’s the state you’re stuck in as a poor person, it doesn’t matter that there are all these negatives attached to taking a hollowed out public transit system; if you don’t have the money for a car you either take it (and spend an extra hour or two commuting each way due to delays or wait times) or you don’t go anywhere. Someone with the money to buy and maintain a car is objectively not more impoverished than the person who is scrounging for $1.75 to pay fare.
Again, that is a policy failure. Do not blame the public transit & pro-walkability/bicycleability organisations, but the car lobbies.
Also, c'mon, a car is more expensive to maintain - it impoverishes you more. You have to pay for petrol/electricity/hydrogen, have to face traffic jams and still focus during travel, find parking spots, waste a ton of your local currency on paying it off, and so on.
I understand it's a situation people are stuck into in there but still, it's an abject policy failure from elected corrupt politicians who are deep in petrol and asphalt's pockets.
Do you know the phrase that you can’t get blood from a stone? Someone who can’t even afford the car has a worse quality of life in places without good public transit, that’s why for the most part everyone who can afford it chooses to drive in those areas. I blame the state and the federal governments for improper funding, not transit agencies. Someone who can choose to spend money on driving a car instead of rent is not somehow worse off than their neighbor who can’t afford a car but still has to get to their job with an added 1-2 hours tacked on to their commute each way.
Sorry, what?? Taking the bus is cheaper than owning a car.
taking the bus is cheaper than owning a car. I actually took the statement to more mean that you have to go to places like the assitance office in person and its located whereever which for some means some crazy transfers and such that makes it an all day and long day affair.
Start a homestead in the wilderness, every moment spent goes towards your goals
A working horse; one who is trained to pull a plow, costs a minimum of $3,000.00 in the USA today. Also, there's no such thing as 'wilderness.' There's plenty of uncultivated land, but it's all owned by the government or private interests who would be averse to you showing up and planting crops.
I suggest you go to the local library and get access to the interwebs, so you can check the facts before you start making silly suggestions.
Just get a small gift or loan of a few million dollars from your parents. Honestly, why don't more of the poor think of this? Clearly they are not very smart.
Facts and nuance don't mean anything when you're an angry little teenaged shit on the internet.
So destroy more forest to grow food for one person? May I suggest an alternative. We protect the little forest that remains and instead relax zoning laws to allow people to grow food on the countless acres of grassy yard space/land we already have. Grass is an outdated non native crop originally grown by rich assholes as a staus symbol to say "I have so much I do not need to use my land for anything productive."
You don't have to tear down a forest to grow food. There are far more options out there for growing food than conventional modern farming. I totally agree about lawns, though. Lawns are stupid.
If you believe it's that simple, you should look into it.
The biggest problems are water access and soil quality. Generally speaking, all of the land that is good for farming is not wilderness, it's already owned and in use by somebody. If you have to spend money to irrigate and more money to make the soil into something that can grow food, you'll be broke long before you're self-sustaining.
And, spoiler alert; even if you manage to get land with water access, you are going to go through hell to get the rights to use that water in any meaningful way. Try something as simple as rain water collection with mout the rights? Best case is a massive fine.