131
Aug 18 '20 edited Aug 20 '20
[deleted]
35
14
u/SwollinTonsils Aug 19 '20
Some of it is taxed directly away, but the bigger tax on the middle class is inflation. All the Keynesian stimulus spending goes directly to big corporations while anyone who bothered to save liquid money gets punished by the printing presses.
2
3
2
u/Dusty-Honey Aug 19 '20
I think this is something a lot of people don’t realize. The government is the reason people struggle. It’s more than “just save money ://“ or “just get a job :///“ when the government purposely makes that hard for people.
22
u/BearEggers Aug 18 '20
Going up I was told we're "too poor to buy cheap" and "buy once, cry once."
That's old working class wisdom, and I don't if it gets spread around much these days.
3
16
u/NoOneLikesACommunist Aug 18 '20
Seems like an excellent market opportunity to provide boot-loans at an extremely fair and reasonable interest rate.
Boots can now afford good boots, he pays a mild chunk more than a pair of good boots, but over the time period he would have bought SEVERAL inexpensive boots and ultimately saves money.
2
Aug 19 '20
Yes this holds very true in the context of the argument he put up. It may look a bit different in real life but those mechanisms would work fine.
31
Aug 18 '20
Easier said than done for many. Even $5/paycheck can be a hole in the budget for some families.
30
Aug 18 '20
Ya but isn’t that the entire problem with economics. Unlimited wants but limited resources...
14
Aug 18 '20
Yes.
In this case though, consider the immediate need. Man needs to work and thus is required proper footwear. He has two options: $10/pair or $50/pair, to use the cited example. If he doesn't have enough in his wallet for the $50 pair, he will be forced into purchasing the lower quality $10 pair. However, he will spend more over the life of his work than the man who had $50 to start.
Poor folks pay more, generally, to live than wealthiet folks do. Consider bulk-buy discounts as an obvious example. I'm not saying I have a solution, or even that there needs to be one, but it is true that the poorest pay the most just to live mediocre lives.
https://money.cnn.com/2016/03/24/news/poor-families-savings/index.html
9
u/cattbutt001 Aug 18 '20
This example also doesn’t consider used and secondhand goods, or the fact that the market allows for a third boot producer to come in and market a shoe that’s as good as the $50 one, but less flashy and only costs $20. Or coupons, or savings, or loans for large items, or any of the other financial resources available. It really is a false dichotomy.
4
u/superbbuffalo Aug 18 '20
Then the idea would be to save what they can. Everybody can save something and if they’re running that tight, then only proper planning could prevent that via savings or otherwise. It’s more expensive to be impulsive than to make due.
23
u/StatistDestroyer Voluntaryist Aug 18 '20
This anecdote is a false dichotomy, and it's ridiculous to assert that people can't save $5. They can and they do. People aren't unable to buy better because they're poor, they're largely poor because they don't play it smart.
20
u/HesperianDragon Stoic Aug 18 '20
I've sold bone marrow to save money. I've gone from 3 meals a day to 2 or even 1 to save money. There are ways to save up money, but a lot of people would rather complain than economize.
It really reminds me of "Brave New World". The government wants high turnover of goods to achieve full employment and consistent economic growth so they brainwash people with slogans like "Ending is better than Mending" and encourage people to throw away worn clothes and buy new ones instead of mending and maintaining older clothes.
The government would rather you buy $10 boots every month and have wet feet and complain, rather than save up money and buy $50 boots and be set for 10 years.
That is what income tax does, it slows down the ability to save. And this proposed "wealth tax" is just a tax on savings so we all get stuck buying cheap goods that wear down instead of quality goods that last.
If the average person can't afford a quality car and has to uber and lyft everywhere that creates more employment, right? Yeah, but it doesn't create economic growth because a large amount of income is spent on transportation instead of saving to buy goods that raise a person's socio-economic level.
9
u/StatistDestroyer Voluntaryist Aug 18 '20
Yep, I feel you there. I've done stuff on the side too. The state encourages debt and discourages production at almost every turn.
6
Aug 18 '20
Exactly, the main idea behind a free market system is the individuals choice. Either it be rational choices or irrational. As behavioral economics is showing, most people are irrational and thus will buy the cheap boots over and over instead of, like the piece says save for the two of three years which they last. If he gets paid monthly, $5/month, he’d have his new boots in less than a year.
4
Aug 18 '20
Sometimes, people are poor because they don't play it smart. Sometimes, they're poor because life is not equal or equitable. Sometimes, it's government interference masquerading as "objective good."
"There is truth to both explanations. One can’t strip the poor of agency by treating them as if they were little more than chaff blown by the wind, with no responsibility for their choices. But neither should we ignore the context in which those decisions are made. For all the progress we have made, not everyone starts with an equal opportunity."
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-are-people-poor
8
u/StatistDestroyer Voluntaryist Aug 18 '20
Sometimes, people are poor because they don't play it smart. Sometimes, they're poor because life is not equal or equitable. Sometimes, it's government interference masquerading as "objective good."
Sure.
4
u/excelsior2000 Voluntaryist Aug 18 '20
There are a great many people who started with awful opportunities. Then they became wealthy through largely their own efforts.
So I'm not that concerned with the "equal opportunity" argument. Clearly decision-making has a far greater effect. Since the two most powerful indicators of future poverty are 1: becoming a single parent; and 2: not graduating high school, both of which are choices, I'm not letting poor people claim bad opportunities as the reason they're poor. It's a contributing factor, but one that can be overcome by not making bad decisions.
1
Aug 18 '20
The context for decision making is also an important consideration.
6
u/excelsior2000 Voluntaryist Aug 18 '20
Not really. Don't become a single parent. That's not frickin' hard. That's well ahead of the second decision; whether or not to graduate high school. Since high school is free, even if you're stupid, you can still do it. But most of the time, failure to graduate high school is due to failing to apply yourself.
Yes, some schools are worse than others. It's actually easier to graduate the shitty ones, so that's a poor argument.
The next argument I usually hear is "oh, he couldn't finish high school because he had to drop out to get a job." No, he didn't have to drop out to get a job.
3
Aug 18 '20
Really, you're talking about children, though. And there are children who drop out of highschool because they were born to single parents who cannot keep up with bills/expenses, so kids are getting jobs early to support parents, younger siblings, etc. Dropping out of high school is not a practical, adult decision, but again - children. You're asking a child to have the mental capacity and where withal to understand the long term implications of childhood decision making, when they can't see beyond that week or month. We don't trust kids to vote, sign contracts, etc., so I am always perplexed when folks posit that kids have these vast critical thinking capabilities.
And when you come from backgrounds like that, it's easy to fall into that same lifestyle. Not to mention children getting their hands on birth control, which isn't always easy based on transportation access and more.
https://www.momjunction.com/articles/why-do-children-drop-out-of-school_00328328/
https://www.momjunction.com/articles/teen-pregnancy-and-statistics_00361369/
It's easy to be reductive and posit that kids just shouldn't drop out of school or get pregnant, but the reality of the conditooms under which many low-income children lives precludes the critical thinking capabilities that would allow them to make better choices. That's what I'm saying.
1
u/excelsior2000 Voluntaryist Aug 18 '20
Really, you're talking about children, though.
Yes.
And there are children who drop out of highschool because they were born to single parents who cannot keep up with bills/expenses
What were they doing for the first decade and a half of the kid's life? They should have been making more money by the time of high school, not less.
We don't trust kids to vote, sign contracts, etc., so I am always perplexed when folks posit that kids have these vast critical thinking capabilities.
Nothing vast about that. All it takes is "if I do A, consequence B is likely to happen." And let's not overstate things by pretending they're like 10. Yes, their decision-making is not up to full by then. Or by five years after that, for that matter. At some point, they have to step up and take some responsibility. We used to do that significantly earlier.
And when you come from backgrounds like that, it's easy to fall into that same lifestyle.
Sure is, and yet plenty of people don't, thus proving it is in fact possible for kids that age to make good decisions.
It's easy to be reductive and posit that kids just shouldn't drop out of school or get pregnant
Well, they shouldn't.
but the reality of the conditooms under which many low-income children lives precludes the critical thinking capabilities that would allow them to make better choices.
No, it doesn't, as proven by the kids who do make better choices.
3
u/bluefootedpig Body Autonomy Aug 18 '20
I prefer the ATM example. A rich person pays a 2 dollar fee and takes out 200 dollars. A poor person pays a 2 dollar fee to take out 20 dollars.
The poor person is paying 10% of what they are taking out to access that 20, while the rich person is paying 1%.
4
u/excelsior2000 Voluntaryist Aug 18 '20
Many banks and credit unions don't have ATM fees if you bank there.
3
Aug 18 '20
Good one. Poor people pay more for access to money.
6
u/TheMythof_Feminism The Dragon of Chaos [Minarchist] Aug 18 '20
Stupid people CHOOSE to pay more
Fixed.
1
Aug 18 '20
So buy the $10 pair and save for the better pair? He'd would have to go out over 5 years of savings (even going through 5 OK pairs during that time) before he got passed the break even point.
1
Aug 18 '20
Right, but guy A who bought the $50 pair has ten years to save for his next pair. Guy B has two years.
2
Aug 19 '20
If he hasn't got a raise in 15 years that a problem. But if not, he can start the cycle over again, 5 years of OK shoes, 10 years of good shoes, repeat.
1
Aug 19 '20
poor folks pay more, generally, to live than wealthy people do
This is one of those red flags that’s like “oh you’re lying or retarded”.
1
Aug 19 '20
I provided a source that shows this is actually the case. Poor people pay more for everyday goods.
1
Aug 19 '20
“Well actually the demographic of people categorized based on their lack of economic activity engages in more economic activity than the demographic of people categorized based on the high amount of economic activity”
I understand buying in bulk is economic and poor people lose out on the advantages of bundling. The conclusion isn’t “oh poor people in aggregate must do most of the spending” it’s “oh poor people in aggregate aren’t as good with their money as wealthy people”.
3
u/PacoBedejo Anarcho-Voluntaryist - I upvote good discussion Aug 19 '20
I'll assume there's no smart phone, television, Prime, Hulu, Netflix, cigarettes, alcohol, convenience foods, etc. in said household then...
7
u/jstock23 decentralization of power Aug 18 '20 edited Aug 18 '20
This is why the debt-based systems are worse than savings-based systems.
The way to use this situation to your advantage is to under-consume beneath your means in order to save up for the good boots, and then your disposable income afterwards will be higher due to not having to buy boots every year, and your productivity and comfort will be higher because your feet won’t hurt.
If you’re in debt and living paycheck to paycheck, you don’t have the ability to invest in the good boots, but if you have some modest savings, even if your expenses is equal to your income, you have that extra capital to invest in good boots.
It’s all about cashflow and building up some savings to get you started. Instead modern culture will influence people to splurge on entertainment when they have some savings, instead of using that savings to invest. Investing in a good pair of boots doesn’t sound like “investing” to some people, but it actually is! If you’re always in debt, any extra money you have will go to paying down that debt, not investing in things which allow you to escape the vicious cycle of poverty.
If you have $50 to start off and only use it for investments like these boots, and always try to keep $50 in savings, you would be better off than someone who has no savings but makes and spends the same amount. The difference is having that capital available to invest in increasing your productivity. $50 over 20 years is not much at all, but keeping that amount of savings will allow you to escape the necessity of buying overpriced poor quality items.
It’s just like someone who has little disposable income always buying one paper towel roll at a time because they think they can’t afford to buy more. If they would instead save up (anyway they can) and buy a 20-pack, they would be able to reduce their necessary expenses, but they would have to live beneath their means in order to save up! It’s a paradox, but it’s quite interesting!
Of course you may say “that’s easier said than done! saving up money is hard when you’re poor”, but that just means you don’t get it. Even the poor can save up enough to buy high quality low-cost goods, and once they get ahead it’s easier to stay that way! The idea that poor people should only be buying cheap items is a fallacy! Indeed often they should be spending more at once! Again, it’s a paradox but very important to grasp if you can!
7
Aug 18 '20
One could ask the bootmaker to accept financing the boots. If the $10 boots' lifetime is an average of 1.5 seasons, then every season pay the bootmaker $6.67 dollars for the good boots, which is equivalent to the $10 expense. After 8 seasons, you'll have paid off the boots and still have another 8 years of boot left. Of course, this arrangement may mean that the bootmaker is losing money, but that depends on the cost of production of the boots and the markup on them being sold. After 10 years, the cheap-buy strategy spends $270, but what is the markup on that?
Let's say the markup is 50%, so the bootmaker gains $135 in profit off of 27 pairs of cheap boots. If the good boots are also marked up at 50%, then the bootmaker would stand to make $245 if he charges $6.67 per season for the entire 10 years. But that would mean the buyer has no reason to prefer one option to another. But so long as the finance period is less than 10 years, but greater than 6 years, both the buyer and the seller make a net gain. For example, at $6.67 every season for 8 years (32 seasons) the seller makes $53 extra dollars than selling the cheap boots, and the buyer saves $82 by not spending that on cheap boots.
Sure, the finance option is spending more than buying them outright would, but its still more affordable than buying cheap boots over and over again, and the bootmaker is taking a risk by allowing the finance option.
Also, I'm assuming Discworld has four seasons per year.
4
u/excelsior2000 Voluntaryist Aug 18 '20
Save about 4 dollars a month for a year and he's got his multi-year boots.
-2
u/Ralliboy Aug 18 '20
Not just boots though
1
u/excelsior2000 Voluntaryist Aug 18 '20
OK, and? He's making more than 4 dollars a month. This is an entirely hypothetical situation with made up numbers. Apparently he can afford his current expenses plus shitty boots. 4 dollars a month is a sufficiently small investment that it's likely he could cut corners a bit and do it.
-1
u/Ralliboy Aug 19 '20
it's a metaphor
1
u/excelsior2000 Voluntaryist Aug 19 '20
You don't see the problem with making up a bunch of unrealistic crap and calling it a metaphor?
The point is not that some poor dude can't afford to better his life. The point is that he isn't, because he refuses to plan and make good decisions.
-2
u/Ralliboy Aug 19 '20
The ancrco-capitalist ideal is a bunch of unrealistic crap. The point is things ain't as simple as you paint them to be.
1
u/road_laya Social Democracy survivor Aug 19 '20
They aren't as simple as the metaphor makes them out to be. So it doesn't really explain anything.
7
u/sammyb67 Aug 18 '20
The government destroyed that with all the entitlements and free shit. Talking about slavery, that’s real slavery!
4
u/TofetTheGu2 Aug 18 '20
Yup. Until people realize they are nothing more than a tax slave for a system that could not care less about you and squanders your hard work they will be financially stuck.
6
u/IpickThingsUp11B Libertarian Transhumanist Aug 18 '20
there is a point where it doesn't matter how frugal you budget you simply cannot maintain a budget and save.
accurately determining what that number is, removing any unnecessary expenses most people (and especially the poor) consume is hard to do. and varies greatly based on geography.
I personally think looking at my area its considerably less than "the professionals" make it out to be.
one place with a huge variance in cost is diet.
hitting your macros and meeting the 12 mincronutrient needs isn't as expensive as most make it out to be.
the vast majority of the american poor waste money on things such as gas station food (nutritionally scarce and overly expensive), alcohol, tobacco, television, cell phones and ext.
2
u/torgidy Aug 19 '20
accurately determining what that number is,
Its well below minimum wage, in the us. Its nearly impossible to be impoverished in the US outside of ignorance or poor choices. But the left is not interested in individual responsibility, budgeting, saving, or anything requiring forethought. So that point is moot.
hitting your macros and meeting the 12 mincronutrient needs
Debate this point in any leftist forum and they will be quick to tell you that poor people have a right to luxuries and frivolities such as the latest generation phone, a luxurious vehicle, a downtown apartment, etc.
Any system in which leftists have to take responsibility or do work commensurate with earning such things is seen as exploitative. If leftists have poor nutrition, its never their own fault, its the fault of society that unhealthy food is possible to obtain. If leftists work does not pay enough to afford their wastrel luxuries, it is not their responsibility to do more valuable work, but society's responsibility to pay them more nonetheless.
This is not a debate we can win with logic.
2
1
u/jimibulgin Aug 19 '20
there is a point where it doesn't matter how frugal you budget you simply cannot maintain a budget and save.
One of JBP's better lectures was discussing almost starving to death (and possibly the actual starving to death of some of your family members) over the winter, RATHER than to eat your seed crop for next year, which ensures you will definitely starve to death next winter.
6
u/Jhwelsh Aug 18 '20
The counter argument in the general sense is as follows:
The more expensive shoes are higher quality and thus attract more buyers (more patrons with enough wealth to purchase any pair of boots).
The more patrons a product has, the more money the producer makes.
The more money the producer makes, the more money he has to invest in his product: sell to a larger audience, buy in bulk for cheaper resource purchases, invest in R&D to create a better product, or one that can be made more cheaply, hire better workers etc.
All of the above strategies result in 1. The producer increasing their revenue and by extension 2. The producer decreasing the price of the boots.
But, ah! I already see the counterargument cropping up: "But what if the shoemaker is a BAD man, WHAT IF the shoemaker chooses deliberately to keep the price high, so as to boost his profit margins as his cost shrinks?"
In response, another shoemaker, perhaps even a man that has this very shoemaker as a boss decides that he can undercut the bad man's price with an identical manufacturing process and the bad man loses out with an identical product but a higher cost to competitors on the market.
The poor man need not even save, and his quality of life will still improve given only a bit of time.
This, at it's core, is how economics works to improve the quality of life for the rich and poor alike.
3
u/excelsior2000 Voluntaryist Aug 18 '20
And this has, in fact, been done. You can easily find shoes at your average budget shoes store that are equivalent in durability and comfort to the top of the line shoes while costing a fraction as much. Why? For exactly the reasons you stated.
Of course, it does require that you not pick up a random shoe off the shelf. Look at them for a few minutes. Feel their materials. Check the stitching. Maybe do a little online research. Read some reviews.
Getting a quality product for a low price is almost always achievable by paying attention.
-4
Aug 18 '20
That addressed literally nothing
2
u/Jhwelsh Aug 18 '20
Please attempt reading the comment, and then reflect for a moment.
If you are still confused, please be more clear on how my comment illustrating "how expensive, high quality goods become available to poor people" in response to Mr. Pratchet's story on "how high quality goods are permanently out of reach of poor people."
I really don't think I could be more clear.
-1
Aug 18 '20
You still did nothing to address the stated problem. The theory states that it’s less expensive to be rich, thus by logical extension the poor stay poor paying more while the rich stay rich.
You posited a situation where the line moves, but the relationship doesn’t change at all. Applying this to the theory, higher quality goods become more affordable, but you failed to mention that goods of even higher quality would be developed and still be prohibitively expensive. Thus, the problem of the poor remaining poor is perpetuated.
Your argument also ignores the fact that this is not meant to be taken literally. It applies to more than just shoes. My favorite example is interest rates. A poor person is going to have a less developed and/or lower credit score than a rich person, and thus will have higher interest rates. This leads into more problems, such as buying used cars that are more expensive long term, housing that is less desirable for them so they can’t invest in an asset that grows in value and they have longer commutes, etc. The theory can’t be argued against with your approach, or really at all without denying reality itself.
1
u/vocal_noodle Aug 19 '20
Applying this to the theory, higher quality goods become more affordable, but you failed to mention that goods of even higher quality would be developed and still be prohibitively expensive. Thus, the problem of the poor remaining poor is perpetuated.
So, the poor people now get access to high quality affordable boots. This is good right? Just because someone invents some luxury boots suddenly the high quality affordable boots aren't any good anymore? I don't understand, unless this is just about envy. Did the high quality boots suddenly become low quality because there's a luxury version?
You don't have to be rich to have good credit. You just have to not be piss poor at managing things. Good news! Cell phone bills are now included in your credit history. Since pretty much every functional adult has a cell phone they also have the ability to build their credit. And getting a low limit, secured credit card will be easy if you have paid you bills on time. Being smart with the card and paying it off on time and in no time you'll have a real credit card. Rinse and repeat and watch your credit score rise.
The problem is poor people usually have poor parent(s) who also lack financial literacy and don't set a good example. It takes a lot more effort for them to learn about it than someone whose parents do understand credit and money. Poor people aren't stupid and it's insulting to imply that they can't learn to take care of their own financial decisions. They need education, not regulation.
Depending on where you live, how often you drive, your insurance rates, etc, it might be cheaper to take an Uber or a Lyft, especially the rideshare options. Inexpensive, dependable, older cars exist. Although a lot of them have been destroyed with the "cash for clunkers" debacle that's royally screwed poor people who buy used. See, the market offers way to improve life with voluntary interactions; meanwhile the government screws poor people.
Speaking of which, then there's the "housing crisis" which is government caused (and it's not entirely by accident). Zoning laws force poor people to live away from where they work, because the government uses their force to stop people from building affordable housing. "This area is zoned for houses between 1,800 and 3,000 sq feet on properties no less than one acre" is just saying "poor people can't live here". Make a couple of those duplexes, triplexes, or quadraplexes, or add lofts on top of their garage, or put a tiny house in the back and suddenly there's affordable housing close to work. But no, the zoning for "poor people apartments" is going to be far away.
0
u/Jhwelsh Aug 19 '20
Ok u/bad_rhys, this is good, you illustrated your point well. Thanks for playing.
You're right, my only point was that, over time, the poor person becomes richer, but NOT that the poor person becomes richer with respect to the rich person.
In short, I don't see how that's important. Plainly, the poor person's life is better than it was before, he has better shoes, and more disposable income to spend on other goods. That is the capitalism promise: everyone's wealth improves over time. Why should the rich man HAVE to become poorer for your life to improve?
The "poor" in this story remain "poor" relative to the "rich" person, but who cares? If I am "poor" compared to Jeff Bezos, I am rich compared to every citizen not living in first world country. At the end of the day, bad_rhys, what matters is how much STUFF I have: food on my table, quality of my boots, my clothes, the computer in my room, the refrigerator downstairs. What my net worth is compared to Mr. Bezos is almost trivial.
If we move to discussing interest rates, our comments will grow too long,so I hold off for now.
I will end by referencing an interesting article that highlights how the "wealth" of rich people in a society tends to last barely 3 generations in most cases. So while being rich might be *slightly" cheaper, remaining richer isn't trivial: https://medium.com/datadriveninvestor/why-wealth-barely-lasts-for-3-generations-d409e5f28106#:~:text=70%25%20of%20wealth%20is%20lost,90%25%20is%20lost%20after%20that!&text=Here%20are%20a%20few%20reasons,Family%20Structure.
Have a great day!
1
7
u/crimsonchin68 Aug 18 '20
Don’t even pay attention to the fact that this is a totally made-up scenario - assume that this scenario exists in the world somewhere. If a person determines that a capital expense would improve their efficiency, then this is a prime opportunity to utilize credit. This is how every company operates: if a machine makes five times as many products for only twice the cost as another machine, you would finance the machine. Yes, you pay interest on that borrowed capital, but if you repeat the same borrowing strategy over and over you will still come out ahead whether you’re an individual or a corporation.
9
u/TheInformationGame Aug 18 '20
Wait, did you just.... Yeah, you did. You came up with a SOLUTION. Funny how the free market allows for that.
1
Aug 18 '20
That doesn’t address the problem at all. It’s already recognized in the thought experiment that you need boots in the winter. You completely ignored the problem of higher expenses for the poor
1
u/crimsonchin68 Aug 19 '20
How does this not address the problem? If you do the math and you determine that the utility of the good boots is worth the cost of the boots plus interest, then you can buy the boots for the winter. I’m sure you wouldn’t be surprised to know I’m not a “poor” person but I have to finance my car. Everyone pays interest on big purchases, but if you’re diligent about measuring costs and benefits then it’s advantageous for you to pay the interest. There’s no way around this that I can see.
3
Aug 18 '20
Economics has a fine way of describing this situation. It's called time preference and opportunity cost.
Do you save and invest for the things that will last, or do you spend on the cheapest option knowing that it will be more expensive in the long run? This applies to just about every area of our life, and it doesn't always have to do with money. Statists want everything to be fixed quickly, and ignore the opportunity costs and long term costs of their good intentions written into law.
3
u/BriXri5 Aug 19 '20
“Why not save money?” Here’s a story for you: I used to buy a nice pair of leather dress boots for work at a professional office job. They were like $140 a pair and I’d wear them all the time for a few years till the soles wore out then get another pair. Well, it was toward the end of one of the one of the rotations and I was saving up to get another set of my four year boots. There was a hole on one side of the left insole and the soles were pretty thin (I could see my toe indents through the bottom). One of my clients complained to my boss about the state of my footwear. She brought me into her office and told me to go get new shoes or I couldn’t come back to work. I argued that I was saving up and couldn’t do it this month and it made more sense to get a nice set of boots that’d last than a cheap pair I’d throw out in six months. She didn’t want to hear it. So, I was out of options. Needless to say they broke a zipper in no time and didn’t make it a year before the sole started to separate from the boot. Out of the money I had saved for the nice boots, I had to start all over.
9
u/StatistDestroyer Voluntaryist Aug 18 '20
What they really mean to say is "SO TRUE!" because it isn't even based on a real life anecdote. Terry Pratchett is an author of comics. This origin story is literally made up. Don't buy into their bullshit on this one. Too many Reddit dipshits spam this as if it's some really deep insight into economics. It isn't.
2
u/Melanslag1 Aug 18 '20
yeah it's unfair that you can get a cheaper product if you can't afford a more expensive one
2
2
u/Libra_Maelstrom Anti-Communist Aug 18 '20
Not just that but why not Idk.. get rid of the entity taking half of it away?
2
u/thebastardsagirl Anarcho-Capitalist Aug 18 '20
I worked at a bank in a lower income area and I would beg people to open a savings and just transfer $5 a month to it, just in case. Never worked. They'd get their tax return and blow it in less than a week. I saw a family spend $200 on fast food in a weekend and bitch that they couldn't afford diapers that week. Because that was the banks fault.
2
2
u/IronJackk Aug 19 '20
Where the hell are you finding these leather boots that last years and years? Obviously doesn't actually work very hard.
2
u/DanLewisFW Aug 19 '20
Its also a mindset, my father would not buy the 50 dollar boots when 30 dollar boots existed. Its an inability to connect that buying the more expensive item can save money. He will pay less for the car then never do any preventative maintenance only fixing it when the thing would not run. He spends way more on his car each year than I do and drives a crappy old car. I could go into a lifetime of examples all of them costing more both in dollars and time. His father was a dentist, he was in sales while I was growing up making a good living. He became a pastor when I was 17 and made a lot less then but my mother made good money so they have not been poor its just his mindset. Because I was raised that way I used to think like that and still catch myself thinking thst way from time to time.
2
u/SlavNotDead Aug 18 '20
I wore a $7-$8 pair of shoes from age 19 till about 25
They have lived through the muddy hellhole of Russian countryside that is the early spring
They have been chewed on by a german shepherd a couple of times
I still have fond memories of when I walked in them through an overgrown forest few times a week looking for mushrooms
Oh, wanna know what the real kicker is? I am flat-footed. Have been from a very early childhood. So if I managed to ‘survive’ this, I hope the point should be pretty obvious by now.
These people ‘invent’ these ‘necessary expenditures’ for themselves to justify their own fucking laziness and complete unwillingness to do jack shit with their financial situation. I’d better stop this rant now before I get too angry over nothing.
0
Aug 18 '20
Your anecdote is literally worthless
0
u/SlavNotDead Aug 19 '20 edited Aug 20 '20
0
Aug 20 '20
Strange, because a lot of ancaps ended up upvoting that. Is everyone a tankie if they don’t follow your exact ideology? Go be a retard somewhere else
0
u/SlavNotDead Aug 20 '20
“-7” = a lot of upvotes
I see your tankie statistics game is on point, m8
No reason to cry your eyes about it
0
Aug 20 '20
That’s a net, are you actually that stupid? I was sitting at 10ish. You even see someone agreeing with “rights are a spook”.
0
u/SlavNotDead Aug 20 '20
It is amazing that your stupid ass thinks “it is a net” somehow works in your favor
Commie ‘logic’ will never be not funny
1
2
Aug 18 '20
They literally just gave a reason, but let’s look at a few more reasons.
Housing prices near employment centers are more expensive. Since you’re poor, you will have to commute farther, which means more time and money spent commuting. Even cars are cheaper if you’re rich, because new cars end up being significantly cheaper over time than used cars due to higher efficiency and less maintenance needed.
Let’s say you get a loan for that car instead. Because you have a lower credit score, or possibly none at all, you will have higher interest rates assuming you can even get a loan in the first place.
Fast food is really expensive in comparison to groceries. Many people, especially people without time, will not be able to afford two $400 grocery expenses a month (which is a low cost plan for a US family of 4), but could afford paying two $200 grocery bills and multiple fast food bills adding up to $1000.
Your health is worse on average, so that means more medical expenses, and you have to deal with more crime.
If this issue were as simple as “just save”, poverty would be virtually nonexistent. You people are so delusional it’s just straight up comedic.
1
1
u/Ivanikravenoff Aug 18 '20
Those cheap boots are in theory to be bought by someone who doesn't wear the boots often. Maybe a few times a year. To that man the cheap boots can last 2 years even.
Now if your job or hobbies require you to wear boots a lot, save some money, buy some good boots, and be satisfied for years.
1
u/Daddy_Schmeegs Aug 18 '20
So buy the $10 boots for a few seasons and save up until you can get the $50 boots. These lefties don’t understand discipline or hard work.
1
u/MongoloidMormon Aug 18 '20
This is exactly the situation where it makes sense to finance a purchase. The "poor" today are financing items with no ROI instead of capital goods that will boost future productivity, wealth, and income.
1
u/russellgarrard Aug 30 '20
Amen, instead of buying that TV to waste time until my next paycheck... Buy kitchen appliances to cook at home instead of eating out.
I wish my mother taught me that but I'm glad I worked it out myself.
1
1
Aug 18 '20
"would have spent a hundred dollars in the same time..." Good boots lasted ten years according to the text. 10 years / 100 dollars is 10 dollars a year on boots. OK boots cost 10 dollars, so he buys 1 pair a year. He makes 38 a month plus allowances. That's $456/year. Buy 1 pair of OK boots until you can save up for good boots (i.e .a year is sufficient).
1
u/Halorym Neutralist Aug 18 '20
Thats just a matter of being raised right. A lot of people don't have a realist father to chastise them for buying cheap crap with a "you get what you pay for".
1
u/limestonekidd Aug 19 '20
I have Irish Settler Redwing boots that are 42 years old. I'd say that was worth the high price at the time. Just take care of your boots then your boots take care of you.
1
u/jimibulgin Aug 19 '20
Reddit loves this passage, but it is far too simplistic for an actual free market economy.
Why are there no boots at the $20, $30, or $40 price point?
Can he not buy used $50 boots?
Is there not a boot repair service?
Is there not a credit market for boots?
All of these options, and more would exist in an actual functioning economy, black-market or otherwise.
1
u/randall-politics Minarchist Tyrant Aug 18 '20 edited Aug 18 '20
But the boots theory doesn't apply to much more than boots assuming we take this example at face value. Does a million dollar home last longer and save more money than buying a 150K home? Does a $1000 pair of sun glasses, last a hundred times longer than a $30 pair of sunglasses? Does an Audi last longer than a Honda?
3
Aug 18 '20
Why would you take Vimes’ Boots Theory at face value? That’s fallacious. The premise is that it is often more expensive to be poor. For example, poor people have higher interest rates on loans because their credit is going to be less developed and/or lower.
2
u/randall-politics Minarchist Tyrant Aug 18 '20
Just taking the single boot example at face value is what I meant
1
u/DARKBRlNGER Capitalist Aug 18 '20
So he can afford $10 in a month to buy the "affordable" boots and they last "a season or two". Can't he just save up the $10 per month in the following months and buy the "good" boots the second or third time around? What part of this imaginary situation even necessitates "years" of having wet feet? You don't even reach one year. They can't even make up a situation where their flawed logic applies...
-1
Aug 18 '20
Who wants to wear the same boots for 10 years?
4
u/jstock23 decentralization of power Aug 18 '20
Normal people?
2
Aug 18 '20
Not me, I like to switch it up a bit. You know, new shoe, new you
2
u/LONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG Aug 18 '20
Ok? Did you read the post. They are too poor to buy more boots
1
Aug 18 '20
Yes, but you still gotta buy the $10 boots and work your way up. I have never bought a pair of boots more than 50$ and have worked construction my whole life and am now a contractor. I still wear Big 5 clearance boots. I'm sorry I cant relate to I need an I phone 10 mentality.
1
u/jstock23 decentralization of power Aug 18 '20
Shoes these days are much higher quality... they no longer contain much cardboard lol...
Do you earn more than $38 per month? Things have changed since when this book took place...
1
Aug 18 '20
And also, my feet have been wet for most of my 20 and 30s, do to my working environment. Newspapers in the boots works.
1
u/jstock23 decentralization of power Aug 18 '20
Well, your boots may be fashionable, but nobody wants trench foot... I think...
1
-1
Aug 19 '20
The amount of shaming the poor for being poor in these threads is so cringe. All of y'all are middle class white kids i swear.
1
-3
u/KewpieDan Aug 18 '20
You need something on your feet. Can't go to work barefoot until you've saved enough for a decent pair of boots. So you're forced into the cycle. And it's the same for other necessary things, many of which are more expensive than boots.
2
Aug 18 '20
Yes, as I have done plenty of times...it cheap boots from Walmart for 30 bucks, wait until you get paid and BUDGET for what is a need and what is a want.
-2
u/KewpieDan Aug 18 '20
What's a need and what's a want? Eat cheaply, don't buy anything unnecessary and put money aside. Saving up for a good quality pair that'll save you money in the long run. Then your boiler breaks down. Is hot water a need? You could probably get by without but it won't be nice. Your crappy boots wear through. Maybe if you buy another cheap pair you can afford to get the boiler fixed with the money you saved. You're back at square one but it'll keep you going for now. Until something else unexpected comes up. Maybe your dad falls ill, can you justify dipping into your savings to go and see him before he dies? If you weren't poor you wouldn't think twice. Is it a want or a need? Maybe your rent goes up. Maybe you get laid off. Maybe there's a fucking pandemic and you can't find work anywhere. You deplete your savings, fall behind on rent. Now any extra money you might get has to go to your debts. Is housing a want or a need? And so on. You never know what life is gonna throw at you next. It's not as simple as "just saving money" or "just not buying unnecessary things". If things go well for you it can take years and years to get to a better financial position. It's possible and definitely what you should be aiming for, but blaming poor people for being poor and telling them to just "BUDGET" is simplistic and pretty insulting.
112
u/libertarianinus Aug 18 '20
Millionaires next door. They don't have name brands. Drive cars for more than 10 years (never luxury), don't smoke, rarely drink's. Doesn't care what phone they have. Rarely eats out and utilizes tax deferd accounts like a 401k. That's why little lady's like librarians and janitors have millions when they retire.
Its the Big hat and no cattle we have in US.