This is what happened when I drove my Mercedes to pick up food stamps(washingtonpost.com)
washingtonpost.com
This is what happened when I drove my Mercedes to pick up food stamps
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/08/this-is-what-happened-when-i-drove-my-mercedes-to-pick-up-food-stamps
11 comments
Wealth signals matter. By wealth signals I mean a person's standard of living. If you are driving a Mercedes you will be perceived as rich. I don't know much about the culture in US, but in my country(India) there is no way you will be considered poor or even middle class if you own a car. Let alone own a Mercedes. Why? That's not very difficult to understand. If you own a car, which falls between the big money and small money its generally an indication that you are doing this on top of your existing savings.
Any reasonable person when they first start working should aim to do the following things in order. Try and eliminate any outstanding debt, Save enough money for the rainy days, and then comes the next most essential commodity- a house and if you are done with that- a car.
They way I see, a lot of poverty issues in the US seem to arise from mismanagement of one's money. If you don't have a home, and don't have a large cache of savings and have debt on top of all this, buying a luxury car on debt again comes out straight as mismanagement of money.
Any reasonable person when they first start working should aim to do the following things in order. Try and eliminate any outstanding debt, Save enough money for the rainy days, and then comes the next most essential commodity- a house and if you are done with that- a car.
They way I see, a lot of poverty issues in the US seem to arise from mismanagement of one's money. If you don't have a home, and don't have a large cache of savings and have debt on top of all this, buying a luxury car on debt again comes out straight as mismanagement of money.
You have to appreciate the context of the situation the author came from... The procedure you describe is conservative but sound for someone who is starting with nothing and building wealth. The shocks to lifestyle when you already have some wealth and lose your income look very different and require a somewhat different approach.
The author began 2008 with dual-source, six-figure income, a modest house, and a couple of cars, and no kids. Within the year, the couple had twins, had lost the greater of their two income sources, and had the audacity to hope that they could recover from their sudden and not-at-all-expected fall from grace.
This is not poverty born of mismanagement of funds, irresponsible spending, or negligence. It is temporary poverty born of bad luck. It's also the sort that the assistance programs in the U.S. are designed to help, and the fact that the author's family was able to recover with that assistance makes this a success story.
The author began 2008 with dual-source, six-figure income, a modest house, and a couple of cars, and no kids. Within the year, the couple had twins, had lost the greater of their two income sources, and had the audacity to hope that they could recover from their sudden and not-at-all-expected fall from grace.
This is not poverty born of mismanagement of funds, irresponsible spending, or negligence. It is temporary poverty born of bad luck. It's also the sort that the assistance programs in the U.S. are designed to help, and the fact that the author's family was able to recover with that assistance makes this a success story.
[There are, of course, quite a few different assistance programs (and variations) in the U.S. - I'm sure the following generalization fails in various specific cases]
Your comments about assistance for temporary bad luck nicely describe how many assistance programs should work. Unfortunately...
> It's also the sort that the assistance programs in the U.S. are designed to help
...this is not even remotely true for almost all of the assistance programs in the U.S. Unless you have literally no other choice, you will be rejected. This what we get after decades of rhetoric about "welfare queens" and related fears that someone could be scamming the system.
Do you still have at least ~$30 in your wallet? A lot of programs will reject you for too much cash. Own anything?[1] Sell it first. Have a pittance in a retirement package that you're not allowed to touch for 30 years? Take the 90+% penalty to cash it in first.
Unfortunately, we have effectively optimized most of our welfare/assistance programs in exactly the wrong way. I suspect we could save quite a bit of money if we dropped the suspicion and helped people early, while they still had a job.
[1] A single "used-econobox" tier car (YES, they check models and current market price) is often excluded, in the theory that you can't actually get most jobs without it.
Your comments about assistance for temporary bad luck nicely describe how many assistance programs should work. Unfortunately...
> It's also the sort that the assistance programs in the U.S. are designed to help
...this is not even remotely true for almost all of the assistance programs in the U.S. Unless you have literally no other choice, you will be rejected. This what we get after decades of rhetoric about "welfare queens" and related fears that someone could be scamming the system.
Do you still have at least ~$30 in your wallet? A lot of programs will reject you for too much cash. Own anything?[1] Sell it first. Have a pittance in a retirement package that you're not allowed to touch for 30 years? Take the 90+% penalty to cash it in first.
Unfortunately, we have effectively optimized most of our welfare/assistance programs in exactly the wrong way. I suspect we could save quite a bit of money if we dropped the suspicion and helped people early, while they still had a job.
[1] A single "used-econobox" tier car (YES, they check models and current market price) is often excluded, in the theory that you can't actually get most jobs without it.
Agreed,
I one lesson I take out of this for my own good is if I'm having a good run, I'm going to use that to save/invest and not spend. Until the trend moves to becoming permanent and becomes the norm I'm not going to assume it will last forever.
Lifestyle pitfalls are difficult to climb out of.
I one lesson I take out of this for my own good is if I'm having a good run, I'm going to use that to save/invest and not spend. Until the trend moves to becoming permanent and becomes the norm I'm not going to assume it will last forever.
Lifestyle pitfalls are difficult to climb out of.
Since their problem cropped up in 2008, I'd like to see the value of the car in 2008, compared to the value 6 years later in 2014.
President Obama’s programs — from the extended unemployment benefits to the tax-free allowance for short-selling a home we couldn’t afford...
In what way are these programs "President Obama's"? Shouldn't these be considered "The Congress's programs"?
I really worry about the degree to which my fellow citizens seem to believe that the President does/should act like a monarch.
In what way are these programs "President Obama's"? Shouldn't these be considered "The Congress's programs"?
I really worry about the degree to which my fellow citizens seem to believe that the President does/should act like a monarch.
If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I am), the President pushed for these things to be passed, that's why people often say "President Obama's programs" or something similar.
Wic, foodstamps, and many many other government programs have been around for far longer than Obama.
Agreed, I was merely commenting on how media often says "Obama's this" or "Obama's bill", because he's often the one that pushes (in this case) Democratic congressmen to introduce a bill.
The extended unemployment benefits could rightly be called the President's, as he proposed and fought for the passage of the extension. The second is, I believe, a reference to the Mortgage Forgiveness Debt Relief Act of 2007, which expired last year, and our current Do Nothing Congress has failed to extend: http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-harney-2014...
>Were we supposed to trade it in for a crappier car we’d have to make payments on?
No, you should have sold the Mercedes because you already had one other car, and two cars and their insurance and upkeep seems like an unnecessary luxury for two unemployed people on food stamps.
No, you should have sold the Mercedes because you already had one other car, and two cars and their insurance and upkeep seems like an unnecessary luxury for two unemployed people on food stamps.
Two people who want jobs need two cars in America, if the stories on HN about the state of public transport are remotely true.
It's bad enough in Germany where nearly every employer expects "mobility" (i.e. driver's license+car), and that with our quite generous mass transit. US is definitely worse.
It's bad enough in Germany where nearly every employer expects "mobility" (i.e. driver's license+car), and that with our quite generous mass transit. US is definitely worse.
As to the employer expectations in Germany: I found this really ridiculous for teachers in training who are expected to own a car to get to the school they work at but are paid 1200€ pre-tax which does not get you very far. You also lose your student ticket for public transport, so going by train is less of an option.
I don't need a car at all for my job, but i live in a city. It depends heavily on your situation, but if you do live in an urban environment with public transit you could even get away with no cars.
Very few cities in the US have public transit that's "good enough" to not have a car. When I lived in the Bay Area I didn't have a car, which was mostly ok. I would walk 30 minutes to a BART station and then be in the city in no time. The grocery store was only a few blocks away, so as long as I made a few trips a week (since I could only carry so much) it was fine.
But I just moved back to Washington, and there's no way you could do without a car here. The busses only cover about half the city, and they're few and far between (and they only run until 10pm). I'm 10 minutes away from a grocery store by car, so walking is out of the question. Cities that aren't packed full of people don't have a reason to invest in their public transit systems, because the payoff isn't worth the cost (there's just too much space to cover for so few people).
But I just moved back to Washington, and there's no way you could do without a car here. The busses only cover about half the city, and they're few and far between (and they only run until 10pm). I'm 10 minutes away from a grocery store by car, so walking is out of the question. Cities that aren't packed full of people don't have a reason to invest in their public transit systems, because the payoff isn't worth the cost (there's just too much space to cover for so few people).
From the byline:
>Darlena Cunha is a former television producer turned stay-at-home mom to twin girls.
...maybe someone from the Boston area can chime in on the state of public transportation.
>Darlena Cunha is a former television producer turned stay-at-home mom to twin girls.
...maybe someone from the Boston area can chime in on the state of public transportation.
You must be confused. Stay-at-home mom doesn't mean can't leave the home. In many parts of America, you cannot go or get anywhere without a car. That includes basic things, like grocery shopping.
I guess I don't want to belabor this too much, and maybe this tags me as an old geezer, but I have personally known families with children, who only owned one automobile. One person can drive the other person to work, and then drive the car around for the rest of the day, and then pick them up after work. Of course we don't know their particular details, like maybe they've got a 50 mile one way commute (which in itself would be crazy for a $25k/yr job).
2 children, just born, underweight. So really, let's just disturb them twice a day so Dad can take Mom to work and home again. Oh, and this is 2008/2009 when lots of people were truly happy to have any job, especially after one of their two incomes just disappeared unexpectedly (layoff, not firing). Mom can't take the car to work herself because Dad might need it for errands or medical issues with the kids. They owned the Mercedes (and no debt was mentioned for the unreliable Honda). Why sell assets that are paying for themselves in terms of actual money (getting her to work), and relieving emotional/financial stress (confidence that they aren't totally fucked if one car fails).
maybe they've got a 50 mile one way commute (which in itself would be crazy for a $25k/yr job).
There are many people here in Minnesota who drive comparable distances to make less money. When you live in the sticks and the closest job is a gas station 30 miles away that pays minimum wage, you're pretty much screwed.
There are many people here in Minnesota who drive comparable distances to make less money. When you live in the sticks and the closest job is a gas station 30 miles away that pays minimum wage, you're pretty much screwed.
The husband had a job in Hartford (about 100 miles from Boston), so I'm assuming that they lived somewhere between Hartford and Boston. I've lived in both cities. Boston itself has very good public transportation for a US city. Hartford has mediocre public transit - it would be very difficult to live in Hartford without a car. If you're living in a suburb between the two cities you absolutely need to have a car.
[deleted]
This article is about their situation from 2008/2009.
You should tell that to all the people that come running for openings I've had at my restaurant, to make just above minimum wage. The ones that just took a 2 hour public transit ride one way, the ones that drove for 45 minutes or more, or the ones that just straight up walked because they couldn't afford to pay for the bus and maybe the job will help pay for the bus in the future.
Cars break down, cars are often needed for jobs and for interviews for jobs, and two adults looking for whatever they can get are going to want to keep two cars as a _necessity_ in a lot of places.
I absolutely understand how a family on food stamps could justify having two cars, especially when one is already paid off. They had jobs during this time, even (not that that changes anything):
> In just two months, we’d gone from making a combined $120,000 a year to making just $25,000 and leeching out funds to a mortgage we couldn’t afford.
Cars break down, cars are often needed for jobs and for interviews for jobs, and two adults looking for whatever they can get are going to want to keep two cars as a _necessity_ in a lot of places.
I absolutely understand how a family on food stamps could justify having two cars, especially when one is already paid off. They had jobs during this time, even (not that that changes anything):
> In just two months, we’d gone from making a combined $120,000 a year to making just $25,000 and leeching out funds to a mortgage we couldn’t afford.
This is statement I take most exception to in the article. Here [1] is a ten-year-old Mercedes on Craiglist for $15K. You can run perfectly serviceable cars like a 2003 Civic for $5-7K. Even if you immediately sock away $2K into a savings account for maintenance costs, and take sales tax into account, you still landed $5K cash overnight and probably have a lower insurance payment.
Also, you would not be making payments on the car because, uh, you paid for it in cash with the money from selling the car.
I'm extrapolating from incomplete data, of course, but I feel the article's statement deserved far more analysis than the 1-sentence glossover it received.
[1] http://sanantonio.craigslist.org/ctd/4530142457.html
Also, you would not be making payments on the car because, uh, you paid for it in cash with the money from selling the car.
I'm extrapolating from incomplete data, of course, but I feel the article's statement deserved far more analysis than the 1-sentence glossover it received.
[1] http://sanantonio.craigslist.org/ctd/4530142457.html
That's an E55 AMG, which new is a $100k car. Since the couple only made $120k before they lost their jobs, it's unlikely that is what they had.
More likely, it was something like a C230 Kompressor, which ran ~$30k new.
More likely, it was something like a C230 Kompressor, which ran ~$30k new.
It takes a tremendous amount of energy and time to sell a used luxury vehicle. BTW, just giving us a link to a Mercedes listed for $15k tells us nothing. We have no idea how long it's been listed or what the owner of the vehicle is willing to negotiate down to.
Cheap, aging used cars are a risky purchase if you don't have savings to pay for the inevitable repairs.
Besides, once they had that cash in hand, they'd no longer be eligible for food stamps (you need to prove you have no savings or assets). They'd either have to stop collecting food stamps and burn up the excess capital on groceries, or commit welfare fraud.
Being poor in America is rough. Regardless of the "but the poor still have cable TV!" argument, US culture (and the systems created by that culture) takes an almost punitive approach to poverty, where the poor are seen to deserve it and not be capable of making rational decisions.
Besides, once they had that cash in hand, they'd no longer be eligible for food stamps (you need to prove you have no savings or assets). They'd either have to stop collecting food stamps and burn up the excess capital on groceries, or commit welfare fraud.
Being poor in America is rough. Regardless of the "but the poor still have cable TV!" argument, US culture (and the systems created by that culture) takes an almost punitive approach to poverty, where the poor are seen to deserve it and not be capable of making rational decisions.
Right. Except the other car wasn't very reliable apparently.
> That’s how I found myself, one dreary day when my Honda wouldn’t start, in my husband’s Mercedes at the WIC office.
And unreliable transportation can contribute to losing your job, not being considered for a position because you got to the interview late, etc.
The author addresses that:
> And even if we had wanted to do that, here’s what people don’t understand: The reality of poverty can spring quickly while the psychological effects take longer to surface. When you lose a job, your first thought isn’t, “Oh my God, I’m poor. I’d better sell all my nice stuff!” It’s “I need another job. Now.” When you’re scrambling, you hang on to the things that work, that bring you some comfort. That Mercedes was the one reliable, trustworthy thing in our lives.
I think we all know that when you sell something you generally make pennies on the dollar for what it originally cost. And in a situation like hers you think a return to normalcy is right around the corner. I am sure they told themselves "We have to have two cars so we can go to interviews and take care of the kid, etc."
> That’s how I found myself, one dreary day when my Honda wouldn’t start, in my husband’s Mercedes at the WIC office.
And unreliable transportation can contribute to losing your job, not being considered for a position because you got to the interview late, etc.
The author addresses that:
> And even if we had wanted to do that, here’s what people don’t understand: The reality of poverty can spring quickly while the psychological effects take longer to surface. When you lose a job, your first thought isn’t, “Oh my God, I’m poor. I’d better sell all my nice stuff!” It’s “I need another job. Now.” When you’re scrambling, you hang on to the things that work, that bring you some comfort. That Mercedes was the one reliable, trustworthy thing in our lives.
I think we all know that when you sell something you generally make pennies on the dollar for what it originally cost. And in a situation like hers you think a return to normalcy is right around the corner. I am sure they told themselves "We have to have two cars so we can go to interviews and take care of the kid, etc."
Well, that was part of it... the other part, that garnered less sympathy was... "But it wasn’t a toy — it was paid off. My husband bought that car in full long before we met. Were we supposed to trade it in for a crappier car we’d have to make payments on? Only to have that less reliable car break down on us?"
A crappier car? Heaven forbid. Payments? Not if you buy an appropriate car...
A crappier car? Heaven forbid. Payments? Not if you buy an appropriate car...
Atleast they could've sold the Mercedes and bought a cheaper, but just as reliable car.
But the Mercedes was a known quantity. A cheap, used car is not a known quantity. You're talking about trading a known, slightly expensive upkeep, but reliable vehicle for an unknown, cheaper upkeep, but questionable reliability vehicle.
"cheaper, but just as reliable car" are rarely available upfront in used car market (and we're talking 10+ year old cars).
While you can dig up the reliability ratings and Consumer Reports reviews for a brand new vehicle, each used car has its own story and a host of potential problems to surface.
The economic details of the transaction are such that if you need to unload a used car, you're unlikely to get a very good deal for it, but of course when you buy one, you are expected to pay dealer's repair and upkeep costs as well as markup. Plus sales tax to the state. A few hundred dollars lost on accepting suboptimal offer when selling, a few hundred dollars overpaid to drive another used car off the dealer's lot, a few hundred dollars to the state, and we start talking about some real money wasted.
While you can dig up the reliability ratings and Consumer Reports reviews for a brand new vehicle, each used car has its own story and a host of potential problems to surface.
The economic details of the transaction are such that if you need to unload a used car, you're unlikely to get a very good deal for it, but of course when you buy one, you are expected to pay dealer's repair and upkeep costs as well as markup. Plus sales tax to the state. A few hundred dollars lost on accepting suboptimal offer when selling, a few hundred dollars overpaid to drive another used car off the dealer's lot, a few hundred dollars to the state, and we start talking about some real money wasted.
You've had a car for 10 years. You know it's history. You sell it and buy another car for 3/4 the price on Craigslist.
How do you know the car you just bought is reliable?
How do you know the car you just bought is reliable?
I think she made a valid point though. Selling a used luxury vehicle isn't going to make you a ton of money, especially if you have to replace it. In a lot of circumstances it makes a lot more sense to keep a paid off and reliable vehicle. The time and energy it takes to sell a used high-end vehicle in a recession is probably considerable as well.
Also, you are being callous, two unemployed people on food stamps, with children, probably need two cars just as much as anybody. They were probably busting ass, continuously, to get a new job, that usually means driving around, a lot.
Also, you are being callous, two unemployed people on food stamps, with children, probably need two cars just as much as anybody. They were probably busting ass, continuously, to get a new job, that usually means driving around, a lot.
I am interested what the answer would be to the below question.
Would she have sold the Mercedes and made do with the Honda they had, to feed their babies, if there were no WIC or food stamps programs?
>> In just two months, we’d gone from making a combined $120,000 a year to making just $25,000 and leeching out funds to a mortgage we couldn’t afford.
There are many of us who settle for a cheap car instead of a Mercedes and put that saved money in a savings account for a sudden emergency like this.
If you don't have atleast 1 year or more of emergency funds, you shouldn't be buying luxury cars and homes and then expect to pass off the burden on taxpayers(many of whom are suffering themselves to make ends meet, renting instead of buying and not going for luxuries) when hard times fall on you.
>> In just two months, we’d gone from making a combined $120,000 a year to making just $25,000 and leeching out funds to a mortgage we couldn’t afford.
There are many of us who settle for a cheap car instead of a Mercedes and put that saved money in a savings account for a sudden emergency like this.
If you don't have atleast 1 year or more of emergency funds, you shouldn't be buying luxury cars and homes and then expect to pass off the burden on taxpayers(many of whom are suffering themselves to make ends meet, renting instead of buying and not going for luxuries) when hard times fall on you.
I don't begrudge them at all.
The reality is, no matter how big your emergency fund is, Shit Happens. They weren't expecting a pregnancy, let alone with expensive, high-maintenance twins. They weren't expecting to lose their jobs. They weren't expecting to be stuck for more than one year looking for a job ("The days of unemployment turned into weeks, months, and, eventually, years."). Everyone has a guilty pleasure or two, and it's not always as obvious as a cheapo Mercedes (which is not a bad choice at all if you're looking at long term costs vs a cheap car). A $240k house is hardly "luxury" and may make more sense than renting in that area. Even if they had a 1 year emergency fund (a fairly rare thing to do in itself), they likely would have been back on food stamps anyway.
Sure, she could have sold both cars and possibly lose a job as a result. Sure, she could be homeless. Sure, she could do a lot of other really shitty things. I'm glad WIC helped her so she didn't have to give up everything. I only wish SNAP (food stamps) and WIC and other programs could help more people before they feel like they gave up everything they had and then some.
My husband and I both make six figures, we manage to save most of it with cheap rent and very little spent on necessities let alone luxuries, and we have Oh Shit savings for more than one year. But this kind of doomsday scenario is why we have yet to buy a house or a car (thankfully half decent public transit in the bay area) and having children requires us to make a leap of faith, assuming that most people like us do it all the time. The "pay rent and bills, food, and other necessities for a few years" fund doesn't look big enough even for one person accidents, let alone anything else...
If you find yourself in a situation where you blew through your emergency fund and you're still having problems making ends meet, I sincerely hope that you can find the help you need without judgment.
The reality is, no matter how big your emergency fund is, Shit Happens. They weren't expecting a pregnancy, let alone with expensive, high-maintenance twins. They weren't expecting to lose their jobs. They weren't expecting to be stuck for more than one year looking for a job ("The days of unemployment turned into weeks, months, and, eventually, years."). Everyone has a guilty pleasure or two, and it's not always as obvious as a cheapo Mercedes (which is not a bad choice at all if you're looking at long term costs vs a cheap car). A $240k house is hardly "luxury" and may make more sense than renting in that area. Even if they had a 1 year emergency fund (a fairly rare thing to do in itself), they likely would have been back on food stamps anyway.
Sure, she could have sold both cars and possibly lose a job as a result. Sure, she could be homeless. Sure, she could do a lot of other really shitty things. I'm glad WIC helped her so she didn't have to give up everything. I only wish SNAP (food stamps) and WIC and other programs could help more people before they feel like they gave up everything they had and then some.
My husband and I both make six figures, we manage to save most of it with cheap rent and very little spent on necessities let alone luxuries, and we have Oh Shit savings for more than one year. But this kind of doomsday scenario is why we have yet to buy a house or a car (thankfully half decent public transit in the bay area) and having children requires us to make a leap of faith, assuming that most people like us do it all the time. The "pay rent and bills, food, and other necessities for a few years" fund doesn't look big enough even for one person accidents, let alone anything else...
If you find yourself in a situation where you blew through your emergency fund and you're still having problems making ends meet, I sincerely hope that you can find the help you need without judgment.
>Everyone has a guilty pleasure or two, and it's not always as obvious as a cheapo Mercedes
Even the person in the OP's Imgur picture? Everytime someone is given money, it's coming from someone else and not going to someone else who could be more deserving.
Even the person in the OP's Imgur picture? Everytime someone is given money, it's coming from someone else and not going to someone else who could be more deserving.
A vehicle worth less than $10K, Mercedes or not, fine, keep it.
The root beer, no sympathy! Don't buy it with food stamps.
The root beer, no sympathy! Don't buy it with food stamps.
You missed the part where their other car isn't terribly reliable (she mentioned it failed to start, so she had to take the Mercedes). Sounds to me like they should have sold the Honda if anything, and then they would only get a few thousand at most.
It is hard to say . . . I don't really support the idea of selling assets for a little current cash flow, especially an old car that won't get a lot of money, Mercedes or not. If things were that dire, it might have been appropriate to park the car and leave it unregistered and uninsured, but I am not convinced that selling it would have made any sense.
[deleted]
Note that it's not two people, it's (at least) four.
Why would someone making a "combined 120k a year" even own a Mercedes in the first place? That's hardly enough money to waste on a luxury car.
A low-end Mercedes is not much more than a new Honda Accord. It probably wasn't the greatest decision, but it also probably wasn't as irresponsible as you are trying to make it sound.
If you think someone spending $30k on a car with a $120k income is bad, you probably don't want to hear about the folks buying those cars while making half that amount (or worse, leasing them).
Besides, they were pretty conservative with their home purchase. A $250k house on a $120k income is way more conservative than what a lot of people do these days. Just by virtue of the home price, I'd argue they were doing better than the typical Bay Area programmer, who might make $120k but face home prices 5-15 times their income.
If you think someone spending $30k on a car with a $120k income is bad, you probably don't want to hear about the folks buying those cars while making half that amount (or worse, leasing them).
Besides, they were pretty conservative with their home purchase. A $250k house on a $120k income is way more conservative than what a lot of people do these days. Just by virtue of the home price, I'd argue they were doing better than the typical Bay Area programmer, who might make $120k but face home prices 5-15 times their income.
Well, yeah I do think spending 30k on a car when you make 120k is insane. The house price was almost reasonable given their income though.
He owned it outright, from before they even met.
The whole point is that somewhere along the way of being rich enough to buy it (if that was ever truly the case) to being poor enough to need food stamps, they should have sold it.
Being "hard" to sell isn't an excuse. Real poor people sell any asset they can get their hands on.
Being "hard" to sell isn't an excuse. Real poor people sell any asset they can get their hands on.
I didn't make the hard to sell argument, so don't put that on me. I'm making the "it was a reliable asset, and apparently a valuable one as it turned out, so why sell it" argument.
You sell it to buy food so you don't need food stamps. Poor people don't own luxury cars. Period.
I'm guessing in your world they don't own houses or microvaves or refrigerators either. They should sell everything for food before they go on the dole. If they have a single resource other than their physical body, then fuck them.
I fully expect they should own microwaves, refrigerators, tvs... just not cars prefaced with "luxury". Even middle class people have no business owning such things. Even the lowest of the low end Mercedes is 30k. That's way too much to pay for a car unless you're independently wealthy. I don't care how many commercials someone's watched that tell them otherwise.
$30k new.... $5k used.
Honestly, the extra $10k they might have spent on the car pales in comparison to the $100k they lost on the house due to the market crash. So it's a bit absurd to even focus on the car so much when it clearly was not the main culprit.
As for the house, if they lived in any sort of metropolitan area, $250k is not extravagant. In fact, while their income was comfortably over double the median US household income, their house price was right at the median. The average American household leverages their income twice as much as this couple was.
As for the house, if they lived in any sort of metropolitan area, $250k is not extravagant. In fact, while their income was comfortably over double the median US household income, their house price was right at the median. The average American household leverages their income twice as much as this couple was.
The husband bought it before they got married. And it was paid-for. My concern (prior Mercedes owner here) would be the cost of repairs, but it sounds like they got lucky.
he made enough previously to buy it. He inherited some money previously and purchased that. He made a bad financial decision, and bought a car outside his means.
Whatever the explanation, it was paid off previous to this narrative, was reliable, and this is her justification for not selling it.
As user hacknat said, the amount of time and energy it takes to sell an older luxury car is not negligible.
Whatever the explanation, it was paid off previous to this narrative, was reliable, and this is her justification for not selling it.
As user hacknat said, the amount of time and energy it takes to sell an older luxury car is not negligible.
Indeed. All the more reason not to buy one unless you're in rock solid financial condition (even then...).
I guess I'm just having a hard time garnering sympathy for someone who displays such conspicuous consumption especially without the financial means to really pull it off. Their previous behavior is a HUGE part of what's wrong with US culture.
I guess I'm just having a hard time garnering sympathy for someone who displays such conspicuous consumption especially without the financial means to really pull it off. Their previous behavior is a HUGE part of what's wrong with US culture.
I understand. I share your feeling quite a bit. Upvoted you for clear and friendly discussion on a subject that generally evokes a lot of emotion.
I wouldn't argue that the purchase of the car was a good financial decision. As a side note, I don't think buying a C-class Mercedes is EVER a good financial decision. The reactions to this article (or that OP experienced in the narrative) are a testament to the success of Mercedes establishing themselves as a luxury brand even though they sell econo-box line vehicles (top post right now puts this pretty well; this is a symbol of wealth, not actually much of an asset).
I think the house was a worse decision, as it implies a longer confidence in earning potential; the car could have been paid off much more quickly, and we don't really know their earning power at the time of purchase (though I doubt it'd help the point of them being fiscally responsible).
I think a big part of this article is trying to cast an empathetic light on people that end up in tough financial situations BECAUSE of bad financial decision, despite having come from opportunity. When considered clearly, even those impoverished that did not come from opportunity could be saddled with the blame of 'bad financial decisions', but just have many more justifications (that are more easily empathized with) for making the decisions they did.
At some point or another, though, you are following the same mindset of the 'root beer police' in the line at the store, written about in the article. You are drawing a line saying 'you purchasing THAT is not responsible', and you feel justified in doing so because they are using public help.
That's sort of the debate at hand here. Is the use of public funds an invitation, or justification, for judgement from others on your consumption? I believe that it is; if you are going to take money from the government, one cost you suffer will be unyielding judgement from others on what you do or do not buy.
My point: not selling my old(er) Mercedes in lieu of taking food-stamps while I find another job might ACTUALLY be the best financial decision I can make, for a number of reasons. Whether or not I feel morally reprehensible about this is my own business, really; the assistance programs have their own requirements for eligibility and if I meet them, I meet them. Despite this, it is an invitation for judgement in the cultural climate in which we live, and that's just how that is.
I wouldn't argue that the purchase of the car was a good financial decision. As a side note, I don't think buying a C-class Mercedes is EVER a good financial decision. The reactions to this article (or that OP experienced in the narrative) are a testament to the success of Mercedes establishing themselves as a luxury brand even though they sell econo-box line vehicles (top post right now puts this pretty well; this is a symbol of wealth, not actually much of an asset).
I think the house was a worse decision, as it implies a longer confidence in earning potential; the car could have been paid off much more quickly, and we don't really know their earning power at the time of purchase (though I doubt it'd help the point of them being fiscally responsible).
I think a big part of this article is trying to cast an empathetic light on people that end up in tough financial situations BECAUSE of bad financial decision, despite having come from opportunity. When considered clearly, even those impoverished that did not come from opportunity could be saddled with the blame of 'bad financial decisions', but just have many more justifications (that are more easily empathized with) for making the decisions they did.
At some point or another, though, you are following the same mindset of the 'root beer police' in the line at the store, written about in the article. You are drawing a line saying 'you purchasing THAT is not responsible', and you feel justified in doing so because they are using public help.
That's sort of the debate at hand here. Is the use of public funds an invitation, or justification, for judgement from others on your consumption? I believe that it is; if you are going to take money from the government, one cost you suffer will be unyielding judgement from others on what you do or do not buy.
My point: not selling my old(er) Mercedes in lieu of taking food-stamps while I find another job might ACTUALLY be the best financial decision I can make, for a number of reasons. Whether or not I feel morally reprehensible about this is my own business, really; the assistance programs have their own requirements for eligibility and if I meet them, I meet them. Despite this, it is an invitation for judgement in the cultural climate in which we live, and that's just how that is.
Excellent response.
Part of my reaction to this story is self-defense and fear. I live in the US and from birth we're inundated with narrative about how we should live and what we should strive for. The nice house, nice car, nice job... "Nice" being defined externally, always. If you don't want to slip into the pre-carved paths, you need to stay vigilant.
In a sense, shaming this story is a fight against that narrative. By buying into it, the author reenforced it and then suffered the consequences when reality struck. Situations like this are obviously very personal and it's hard to judge on an individual level but in aggregate what they have done is causing damage beyond their own life. Not just the public funds they're now using, but by perpetuating a culture that the author presents as not only acceptable but desirable.
From the car to the house to the journalism degree. No choice showed any foresight and unfortunately large swaths of our population are living this life everyday.
At some point very soon, all of this story is going to have to come to an end and I'm not sure what will replace it. I personally believe that having (and keeping) sharp technical skills, being entrepreneurial and keeping your costs well below your means provide an answer.
In short, it's going to be an interesting decade to come.
Part of my reaction to this story is self-defense and fear. I live in the US and from birth we're inundated with narrative about how we should live and what we should strive for. The nice house, nice car, nice job... "Nice" being defined externally, always. If you don't want to slip into the pre-carved paths, you need to stay vigilant.
In a sense, shaming this story is a fight against that narrative. By buying into it, the author reenforced it and then suffered the consequences when reality struck. Situations like this are obviously very personal and it's hard to judge on an individual level but in aggregate what they have done is causing damage beyond their own life. Not just the public funds they're now using, but by perpetuating a culture that the author presents as not only acceptable but desirable.
From the car to the house to the journalism degree. No choice showed any foresight and unfortunately large swaths of our population are living this life everyday.
At some point very soon, all of this story is going to have to come to an end and I'm not sure what will replace it. I personally believe that having (and keeping) sharp technical skills, being entrepreneurial and keeping your costs well below your means provide an answer.
In short, it's going to be an interesting decade to come.
I agree that this narrative is a harbinger of very troubled times for our country.
I disagree, however, that shaming the story is fighting against that narrative. Empathy for individual decisions does more to effect systemic change, if by no other mechanism than allowing you a clearer understanding of why those decisions were made.
Darlena and her husband making these decisions will not effect the system as a whole, and neither will vilifying them. Understanding why they did what they did, and educating others on how their decisions hurt them will effect change.
The 'this could happen to anyone' tone irks me as well, but in my experience, it is also quite human. The view from hindsight is remarkably clear. The OP was probably more aware than anyone as they opened themselves up to fragility with each financial decision. Unplanned pregnancies (that double in expense w/ twins), jobs in new towns, unexpected job losses, DO happen. When they do, you there is rarely a 'whoa, we've taken on too much debt, this is not sustainable' moment that you can just turn it around. Horse was out of the barn.
an interesting and related read posted further down this thread was a fantastic perspective (though I'm not sure if I agree with it entirely): http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
I disagree, however, that shaming the story is fighting against that narrative. Empathy for individual decisions does more to effect systemic change, if by no other mechanism than allowing you a clearer understanding of why those decisions were made.
Darlena and her husband making these decisions will not effect the system as a whole, and neither will vilifying them. Understanding why they did what they did, and educating others on how their decisions hurt them will effect change.
The 'this could happen to anyone' tone irks me as well, but in my experience, it is also quite human. The view from hindsight is remarkably clear. The OP was probably more aware than anyone as they opened themselves up to fragility with each financial decision. Unplanned pregnancies (that double in expense w/ twins), jobs in new towns, unexpected job losses, DO happen. When they do, you there is rarely a 'whoa, we've taken on too much debt, this is not sustainable' moment that you can just turn it around. Horse was out of the barn.
an interesting and related read posted further down this thread was a fantastic perspective (though I'm not sure if I agree with it entirely): http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
I wonder how much different the story reception would have been if the last paragraph was something like:
"I hope other's can learn from our mistakes and learn to live below their means, because circumstances can change on a dime. Savings is critical, and looking back on things, we spent too much on frivolous consumer items like luxury vehicles."
"I hope other's can learn from our mistakes and learn to live below their means, because circumstances can change on a dime. Savings is critical, and looking back on things, we spent too much on frivolous consumer items like luxury vehicles."
It would have helped in my perception of these people a lot. But then, we do not know if they actually said something very much like this, and it was just omitted.
They weren't both unemployed. She was employed, at $25k/year, he was unemployed. Read the article.
From the sounds of it the other car wasn't reliable.
If you're trying to be ironic you've succeeded. I assume you posted this to draw a line between the woman with a Virginia ham and the woman with the Mercedes, but the rest of the scene is about Tony didn't fully understand his family situation without the whole context.
I just look for any excuse to post something from the Sopranos that might be even slightly relevant. I don't know enough about this lady to make any judgement's regarding her financial decisions.
"That’s the funny thing about being poor. Everyone has an opinion on it, and everyone feels entitled to share."
Wow, these comments are really proving her point.
Wow, these comments are really proving her point.
Everyone should be entitled to share their opinion.
If we're going to choose to address this as a society via public funds it ought to be a matter of public discourse. That doesn't mean people should be tolerated for inflammatory views... but certainly warrants some healthy debate.
If we're going to choose to address this as a society via public funds it ought to be a matter of public discourse. That doesn't mean people should be tolerated for inflammatory views... but certainly warrants some healthy debate.
"Food stamps" are so obnoxious. Just cut them a check or better yet hand out cash.
These comments are pretty depressing. How many of you have ever used those government services? You are paying for them you know. This article should be encouraging. It worked. They payed in, they needed the help and got it, and now they are back on their feet.
Thank you. No kidding. I grew up on food stamps, and I remind myself that when I realize I'm now well into the 1%. This shit matters and most of the people on these programs aren't on them just so they can be lazy, they're on them because they have limited options.
The glibness of the comments here really rubs me the wrong way. A lot of software people - you know, arguably the MOST employable people on the planet - have no hesitation tut-tuting about what The Poors should do while pushing buttons in a comfy chair in an AC office with the knowledge that if anything were to happen, they'd be OK.
News flash, being poor SUCKS, and it means you work your ass of just to get by every day, always in constant fear of the next unexpected event - your car breaks down or you get sick, then you miss a day of work, then you get fired, then you can't find another job, then you're homeless.
It's almost like a bunch of you ready the article and missed the point.
The glibness of the comments here really rubs me the wrong way. A lot of software people - you know, arguably the MOST employable people on the planet - have no hesitation tut-tuting about what The Poors should do while pushing buttons in a comfy chair in an AC office with the knowledge that if anything were to happen, they'd be OK.
News flash, being poor SUCKS, and it means you work your ass of just to get by every day, always in constant fear of the next unexpected event - your car breaks down or you get sick, then you miss a day of work, then you get fired, then you can't find another job, then you're homeless.
It's almost like a bunch of you ready the article and missed the point.
>It's almost like a bunch of you read the article and missed the point.
What is the point of the article? I mean besides the we-can-sell-ads-ginning-up-outrage-(which-may-or-maynot-be-misplaced). I'd like to see a "The Last Psychiatrist" like take on it:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
What is the point of the article? I mean besides the we-can-sell-ads-ginning-up-outrage-(which-may-or-maynot-be-misplaced). I'd like to see a "The Last Psychiatrist" like take on it:
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
great read, appreciate you sharing it. A lot of the same mental grapplings as the OP, but with more insight into motivations.
What's "glib" about replacing food stamps with cash?
"Food stamps" now are actually a debit card called an "EBT" card, at least in my state (not sure if the food stamp program is state-by-state or national), which is nice and discreet.
Discreet-ish. At least in my state the cashier had to pull out a book and make sure the constraints weren't violated. It's a slow process and when there's a line you can feel all the eyes on you.
How recently? With software the register should take care of that automatically, just like knowing what things need what level of sales tax charged.
It happened to the person I was shopping with in California in 2012 or perhaps 2011.
Really? That's interesting, that never happened to me.
A lot of poor people are trying to fight off addiction, have abusive people in their lives who would put them under a lot of pressure to hand over cash, or live in neighborhoods where there would be a high risk of cash being outright stolen. Mechanisms like food stamps have significant advantages.
Would it work better in the end? Possibly. Are you going to have legions of people up in arms about welfare queens using their hard-earned tax dollars to buy crack? Absolutely.
Economists regularly ask which one gets better results. These days they are trending towards direct payment (rather than "in kind"). It sure seems to be the right answer in third-world countries.
I'm of the opinion that there should be a small amount of no-questions-asked assistance available, so people don't have to prove to themselves that they are poor in order to receive stuff, but of a limited quality/quantity that people of means will voluntarily not bother. That's an entirely separate discussion, though.
I'm of the opinion that there should be a small amount of no-questions-asked assistance available, so people don't have to prove to themselves that they are poor in order to receive stuff, but of a limited quality/quantity that people of means will voluntarily not bother. That's an entirely separate discussion, though.
I'm not doubting the efficacy or attempting to discredit it. Rather, I am commenting on the political feasibility or the lack thereof. I grew up with a well-off mother and a poor father. I've rubbed shoulders in country clubs and seen people trade EBT for anything and everything illicit.
My feelings and expectations of the poor are still extremely negative despite all of this. Those of the folks who have never had to experience it even more so. You would have a hard time of switching EBT to cash in a "moderate" political climate, say nothing of the current "Fly this plane into the ground" era.
My feelings and expectations of the poor are still extremely negative despite all of this. Those of the folks who have never had to experience it even more so. You would have a hard time of switching EBT to cash in a "moderate" political climate, say nothing of the current "Fly this plane into the ground" era.
People already complain about them trading EBT funds for drugs.
Yes but it's illegal. Give people plain old cash and you can't restrict what it's used to buy.
mrmoneymustache.com
If you own two cars, one being a mercedes (don't care it's old) and are on foodstamps then you may want to read that site.
It's not a knock. But you can live a lot cheaper than you think... and still save money... and be happy.
REVISE:
No problem with public assistance. But I did want to emphasize that there are people who are very happy living on wages far below what these two were capable of.
If you own two cars, one being a mercedes (don't care it's old) and are on foodstamps then you may want to read that site.
It's not a knock. But you can live a lot cheaper than you think... and still save money... and be happy.
REVISE:
No problem with public assistance. But I did want to emphasize that there are people who are very happy living on wages far below what these two were capable of.
That site might have helped them more before they were faced with sudden financial difficulties. Since they'd already paid for it in full, I don't really know how much it would have helped to sell off the Mercedes. They could have traded it in for a cheaper car and got a few grand, but that would have probably taken a fair amount of time and effort -- would it have really been worth it? It's also worth noting that the low-tier Mercedes models are not much more expensive than a Honda Accord.
To be fair, though, regarding their lifestyle before the crisis, a $250k home on a $120k income is very conservative by most modern standards. They were leveraging their income far less than is typical in the Bay Area in fact.
To be fair, though, regarding their lifestyle before the crisis, a $250k home on a $120k income is very conservative by most modern standards. They were leveraging their income far less than is typical in the Bay Area in fact.
"We're struggling to feed ourselves and our children!"
"but that would have probably taken a fair amount of time and effort -- would it have really been worth it?"
After the first statement? Yes. Heaven forbid it takes time and effort to try to improve your situation.
"but that would have probably taken a fair amount of time and effort -- would it have really been worth it?"
After the first statement? Yes. Heaven forbid it takes time and effort to try to improve your situation.
This is effectively a non-response. Focusing on regaining employment would be a FAR better way to improve the situation, and it's not even clear if the car was worth enough to pay for a decent replacement. Just because it's a Mercedes does not mean that it magically retains its value or even that it was that expensive to begin with.
If they are in such a bad situation that they have to sell off their car in order to pay for some meals, then clearly they needed the support they got. Giving up personal transportation in exchange for food is not even remotely a solution to the problem. It actually makes it far more difficult to regain employment (their Honda broke down, remember?), and the cash from the car sale is only a temporary bandaid--it does nothing at all to solve the fundamental problem of "income < expenses."
It's beyond me how you could think that someone who is in such trouble that they have to sell off all means of personal transportation so their children don't die of starvation would not deserve some sort of aid. In any case, the couple in this story, having regained a comfortable income, is now paying taxes every month so that if you face severe financial trouble you too can receive some aid without having to immediately liquidate every asset you own so your family doesn't die, even those assets that are critical to finding a real resolution of your difficulties.
If they are in such a bad situation that they have to sell off their car in order to pay for some meals, then clearly they needed the support they got. Giving up personal transportation in exchange for food is not even remotely a solution to the problem. It actually makes it far more difficult to regain employment (their Honda broke down, remember?), and the cash from the car sale is only a temporary bandaid--it does nothing at all to solve the fundamental problem of "income < expenses."
It's beyond me how you could think that someone who is in such trouble that they have to sell off all means of personal transportation so their children don't die of starvation would not deserve some sort of aid. In any case, the couple in this story, having regained a comfortable income, is now paying taxes every month so that if you face severe financial trouble you too can receive some aid without having to immediately liquidate every asset you own so your family doesn't die, even those assets that are critical to finding a real resolution of your difficulties.
"It's beyond me how you could think that someone who is in such trouble that they have to sell off all means of personal transportation so their children don't die of starvation would not deserve some sort of aid...."
We can kill that straw man together if you'd like...
Who's saying they didn't deserve assistance? I am simply saying that reducing one's liabilities and conveniences can do as much for your bottom line as going and getting a high paying job. In fact, if you reduce your outgoing costs significantly enough (two cars, two insurances) you may be able to find employment that at a lower wage that will allow you to feed your kids comfortably.
We can kill that straw man together if you'd like...
Who's saying they didn't deserve assistance? I am simply saying that reducing one's liabilities and conveniences can do as much for your bottom line as going and getting a high paying job. In fact, if you reduce your outgoing costs significantly enough (two cars, two insurances) you may be able to find employment that at a lower wage that will allow you to feed your kids comfortably.
The post you're quoting was in response to FireBeyond, not you. My post was reduced to one snarky line of disagreement. If FireBeyond had a more nuanced point than outright disagreeing with everything I wrote, the onus was on him or her to clarify that.
> if you reduce your outgoing costs significantly enough (two cars, two insurances) you may be able to find employment that at a lower wage that will allow you to feed your kids comfortably.
Now they have one car (which broke down) and an income which is just enough to feed their kids comfortably. While the threat of starvation has been eliminated, the difficulty of regaining their original income has been increased, as they're now time-poor as well and even potentially lack personal transportation.
MMM is not about how to deal with a financial emergency that you weren't prepared for. It's about how to prepare for emergencies in the first place.
> if you reduce your outgoing costs significantly enough (two cars, two insurances) you may be able to find employment that at a lower wage that will allow you to feed your kids comfortably.
Now they have one car (which broke down) and an income which is just enough to feed their kids comfortably. While the threat of starvation has been eliminated, the difficulty of regaining their original income has been increased, as they're now time-poor as well and even potentially lack personal transportation.
MMM is not about how to deal with a financial emergency that you weren't prepared for. It's about how to prepare for emergencies in the first place.
Partially true. It's just as much about realizing your finances are in crisis and confronting it as much as it is preventing it. In fact there's large sections of the forum dedicated to just that.
Or see here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/12/03/reader-case-study-...
or here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-de...
or here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/09/15/reader-case-study-...
Hate to sounds like a MMM fanboy... but they do offer as much helpful advice for those in crisis as they do for those striving to improve. It's just more painful measures when speaking of the former.
Or see here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/12/03/reader-case-study-...
or here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-de...
or here: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/09/15/reader-case-study-...
Hate to sounds like a MMM fanboy... but they do offer as much helpful advice for those in crisis as they do for those striving to improve. It's just more painful measures when speaking of the former.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
>That’s the funny thing about being poor. Everyone has an opinion on it, and everyone feels entitled to share.
I guess "being poor" is a relative thing that depends on background and upbringing. When someone says they're poor this image is what comes to my mind, not couple of people with a Honda and Mercedes or ones buying root beer on a deal.
http://imgur.com/xzfNmNZ
I guess "being poor" is a relative thing that depends on background and upbringing. When someone says they're poor this image is what comes to my mind, not couple of people with a Honda and Mercedes or ones buying root beer on a deal.
http://imgur.com/xzfNmNZ
This is the same BS that comes up every time this issue emerges. I remember public outrage when a news station reported that (shocker) welfare recipients had refrigerators and microwaves. Just because you have a car, or a fridge, or even a TV, doesn't mean that you're not struggling to get by. Do we really think people need to lose literally everything they have before they're worthy of sympathy?
> Do we really think people need to lose literally everything they have before they're worthy of sympathy?
This is the essence of pure capitalism. Only when you're truly fucked up, you can expect help from others.
It's disgusting.
This is the essence of pure capitalism. Only when you're truly fucked up, you can expect help from others.
It's disgusting.
I don't believe capitalism has a stance on helping people in need. Please point me to any information you have that may state otherwise as I would be very curious to see their reasoning.
It reinforces the economic ignorance that stops people from recognizing that $1 spent on a capital good is better spent than $1 of a consumption good.
A fridge and microwave allows you to store and prepare meals more cheaply. Buying several hot dogs and buns at once--keeping them refrigerated, and heating what you eat in the microwave--is a lot cheaper in the long run than buying one pre-warmed hot dog from the convenience store whenever you get hungry.
A car that starts and operates reliably is so valuable in America that people would rather give up their houses and live in their cars than vice versa. Even the east coast, where the original municipal architecture predated cars, rather heavily relied upon horses for transportation. We have never been friendly to pedestrian travel (but pedestrian competitions are another story).
If you do not have a car, you are automatically a de facto second-class citizen. The smart thing to do is buy a used car near the start of the bottom of its bathtub curve of reliability, repair it until near the end, and then stop. You then buy your next used car, and it is your backup vehicle for when your original beater finally dies. So the most cost-effective transportation solution is often to have two cars: one older beater/grocery-getter and one newer and more reliable backup. It doesn't matter how many people are in your family. If you are poor, your car may be getting close to being uneconomical to repair, and you will still need to get around whenever it is undriveable.
Even the original article confirms this. Honda broke down. Mercedes was the backup.
Everybody does this if they can. If your car is in any way unreliable, you secure temporary backup transportation before it breaks down. If you have money, you can rent a car for a week, or use a loaner from your repair shop. If you don't, you must have a friend or relative that can drive you to and from work until you get your car back.
The outrage is as incomprehensible to me as being shocked if a poor soldier carries an expensive rifle, or if a poor electrician has an expensive fiberglass ladder instead of a cheaper aluminum one, or if a poor plumber installs expensive copper in his own house instead of PVC pipe and zinc fittings. You do not begrudge people the tools they need to do their jobs, so why would you complain about those they use to live their lives?
Too many people obsess over cost and ignore value. A capital investment may cost more initially, but it definitely provides more value over its useful lifespan.
So when you see a welfare recipient with a complete suite of kitchen appliances, two cars, and maybe even a television and Internet-connected computer, you can tell yourself that there is a person who can bounce themselves back out of the safety net someday, and probably sooner rather than later. Even if they don't, they might be able to throw a child out far enough for them to lower a rope back down. When you see the person that doesn't even have a grocery cart, that person is the one that will be costing the system the most money in the long run. Suggesting that people sell the things that help them survive and save money is absolutely the worst thing you can tell them.
So you keep the Mercedes. Start looking out for a used car to replace the old Honda that broke down. If you get tired of people giving you funny looks, get a can of rust-colored automotive paint and simulate some old body damage with it. Above all, you don't make stupid economic decisions because the people around you can't recognize a smart one.
A fridge and microwave allows you to store and prepare meals more cheaply. Buying several hot dogs and buns at once--keeping them refrigerated, and heating what you eat in the microwave--is a lot cheaper in the long run than buying one pre-warmed hot dog from the convenience store whenever you get hungry.
A car that starts and operates reliably is so valuable in America that people would rather give up their houses and live in their cars than vice versa. Even the east coast, where the original municipal architecture predated cars, rather heavily relied upon horses for transportation. We have never been friendly to pedestrian travel (but pedestrian competitions are another story).
If you do not have a car, you are automatically a de facto second-class citizen. The smart thing to do is buy a used car near the start of the bottom of its bathtub curve of reliability, repair it until near the end, and then stop. You then buy your next used car, and it is your backup vehicle for when your original beater finally dies. So the most cost-effective transportation solution is often to have two cars: one older beater/grocery-getter and one newer and more reliable backup. It doesn't matter how many people are in your family. If you are poor, your car may be getting close to being uneconomical to repair, and you will still need to get around whenever it is undriveable.
Even the original article confirms this. Honda broke down. Mercedes was the backup.
Everybody does this if they can. If your car is in any way unreliable, you secure temporary backup transportation before it breaks down. If you have money, you can rent a car for a week, or use a loaner from your repair shop. If you don't, you must have a friend or relative that can drive you to and from work until you get your car back.
The outrage is as incomprehensible to me as being shocked if a poor soldier carries an expensive rifle, or if a poor electrician has an expensive fiberglass ladder instead of a cheaper aluminum one, or if a poor plumber installs expensive copper in his own house instead of PVC pipe and zinc fittings. You do not begrudge people the tools they need to do their jobs, so why would you complain about those they use to live their lives?
Too many people obsess over cost and ignore value. A capital investment may cost more initially, but it definitely provides more value over its useful lifespan.
So when you see a welfare recipient with a complete suite of kitchen appliances, two cars, and maybe even a television and Internet-connected computer, you can tell yourself that there is a person who can bounce themselves back out of the safety net someday, and probably sooner rather than later. Even if they don't, they might be able to throw a child out far enough for them to lower a rope back down. When you see the person that doesn't even have a grocery cart, that person is the one that will be costing the system the most money in the long run. Suggesting that people sell the things that help them survive and save money is absolutely the worst thing you can tell them.
So you keep the Mercedes. Start looking out for a used car to replace the old Honda that broke down. If you get tired of people giving you funny looks, get a can of rust-colored automotive paint and simulate some old body damage with it. Above all, you don't make stupid economic decisions because the people around you can't recognize a smart one.
That's not poor, that's absolutely impoverished. Poor doesn't mean you can't afford the basic necessities to live like a human being - the guy in your picture doesn't live like a human being, he lives like trash. Living like a human being doesn't just mean having two arms, two legs and breathing, it means living like everyone else - apartment, tables, chairs, a toilet, fresh running water, electricity, fridge, TV, PC, internet (well maybe not in america with your internet prices).
Poor isn't when you're with one foot in the grave, poor is when you have little money and a low income. That doesn't immediately make you a background character in a Dickensian novel who dies of hunger on the streets of New York. That doesn't mean having a fridge to store your food in is some frivolous expense - fridges are a basic necessity. A PC is a basic necessity if you want to get anywhere. What else would you deny people just so you can label them poor and feel nice and fuzzy in your heart knowing you're giving a tuppence to a guy who'll die a poetic death on the street? Clothes? Beds? Houses?
Additionally, go fuck yourself.
Poor isn't when you're with one foot in the grave, poor is when you have little money and a low income. That doesn't immediately make you a background character in a Dickensian novel who dies of hunger on the streets of New York. That doesn't mean having a fridge to store your food in is some frivolous expense - fridges are a basic necessity. A PC is a basic necessity if you want to get anywhere. What else would you deny people just so you can label them poor and feel nice and fuzzy in your heart knowing you're giving a tuppence to a guy who'll die a poetic death on the street? Clothes? Beds? Houses?
Additionally, go fuck yourself.
>Additionally, go fuck yourself.
I am sorry that I am a little biased. My grandfather died in middle age because he couldn't afford medical care. My mom once picked up a snake instead of a pen while she was studying in the dark by candlelight because they couldn't afford electricity.
So, yes, fuck me for thinking someone should've saved money for the future by buying a cheaper car instead of driving around in a Mercedes and then expecting hardworking taxpayers who themselves are struggling and making do with an old Kia, to foot the bill when hard times roll in. I am surprised you're not advocating the government giving them a Tesla so that they can get out of their depression and feel better about being suddenly "poor".
If there was no WIC or food stamps, would they have sold the Mercedes to feed their twin babies and tried to use only their Honda?
People should be more fiscally responsible.
But, yeah, fuck me for thinking so.
I am sorry that I am a little biased. My grandfather died in middle age because he couldn't afford medical care. My mom once picked up a snake instead of a pen while she was studying in the dark by candlelight because they couldn't afford electricity.
So, yes, fuck me for thinking someone should've saved money for the future by buying a cheaper car instead of driving around in a Mercedes and then expecting hardworking taxpayers who themselves are struggling and making do with an old Kia, to foot the bill when hard times roll in. I am surprised you're not advocating the government giving them a Tesla so that they can get out of their depression and feel better about being suddenly "poor".
If there was no WIC or food stamps, would they have sold the Mercedes to feed their twin babies and tried to use only their Honda?
People should be more fiscally responsible.
But, yeah, fuck me for thinking so.
You don't save money by trading in the highest-value capital good that you own and using the proceeds as operating funds.
You dump the house. The glaringly obvious best move in the story is to yield the deed to the house to the creditors, get bankruptcy protection for any deficiency, and use your former mortgage payment on a smaller apartment and upgraded renter's insurance. You get rid of everything that doesn't help you make money or help you keep it, and keep everything that does until someone comes and takes it from you. Never eat the last of your seed corn.
The car is still worth more to them than any money they could get from selling it, and they didn't have to pay extra to keep it.
I wouldn't say "fuck you" for your suggestion, but I do think that it was ill-considered, and that a depressingly large number of people would agree that it was a good idea.
I am also curious to know if your mother was ever able to train the snake well enough to produce recognizable writing with it.
You dump the house. The glaringly obvious best move in the story is to yield the deed to the house to the creditors, get bankruptcy protection for any deficiency, and use your former mortgage payment on a smaller apartment and upgraded renter's insurance. You get rid of everything that doesn't help you make money or help you keep it, and keep everything that does until someone comes and takes it from you. Never eat the last of your seed corn.
The car is still worth more to them than any money they could get from selling it, and they didn't have to pay extra to keep it.
I wouldn't say "fuck you" for your suggestion, but I do think that it was ill-considered, and that a depressingly large number of people would agree that it was a good idea.
I am also curious to know if your mother was ever able to train the snake well enough to produce recognizable writing with it.
Or keep the house and let the bank eat it until you get forced out, which could take many years. The bank took the risk too. Ideally (not reality unfortunately) it's a private deal between you and the bank, no taxpayer money involved.
Just thinking out loud. If they sold the house, could they afford to rent (1st and last month deposit) and would it be any cheaper than the house payment?
They don't sell the house. According to the article, they cannot sell it at a price high enough to satisfy the lienholders. Rather than shouldering the entire burden of a bad property investment alone, they can force the bank to take some of it.
If you have negative equity in a property that has negative cash flow, you really should get rid of it as fast as humanly possible, by any means at your disposal, no matter how much beans and rice you typically eat in a month.
If you have negative equity in a property that has negative cash flow, you really should get rid of it as fast as humanly possible, by any means at your disposal, no matter how much beans and rice you typically eat in a month.
Definitely not cheaper than no house payment. In NV for example there are thousands of homedebtors who haven't made a payment since 2008. They're effectively protected by state law until 2017.
There is an almost unfathomable difference.
I grew up "first world poor" in Appalachia and was approximately a hundred times better off than the man in that photo. I had a modest roof over my head, clothes, toys, food, utilities, a big yard, and among the best public schools in the country. My mother used food stamps at one point in the late 1980s when things were bad. Bad is a relative term.
I grew up "first world poor" in Appalachia and was approximately a hundred times better off than the man in that photo. I had a modest roof over my head, clothes, toys, food, utilities, a big yard, and among the best public schools in the country. My mother used food stamps at one point in the late 1980s when things were bad. Bad is a relative term.
It's interesting what (the generic) you think of as poor. On one hand it is a lot of the homeless downtown. On the other, I could 20 miles from a state capital working Fire / EMS, and be down dirt, overgrown trails to people living in double wides that honestly would be condemned on any number of levels, from health and safety, hygiene, let alone "how the hell is that still standing". I saw families of rats in living rooms, tarps over ceiling holes, holes through the floor to bare dirt beneath, people using swamp coolers and outdoor 'fridges' due to a lack of electricity... most of this is never seen, and never expected.
I don't know if you did this intentionally, but what you just wrote is a great example of what the quote is referring to. You've decided that since they're not literally dying from starvation then they deserve no sympathy and no help.
I for one would prefer to live in a world where poverty of the sort seen in your picture doesn't exist. Part of achieving that is being willing to help out others when they hit hard times but aren't necessarily on the verge of death. Raising the standard of living means just that: it means raising the base expectation of what life as a human being entails. When someone faces trouble and falls below that base expectation, others jump in to help.
The worst sin this couple did, as far as I can tell, is they bought some root beer with food stamps and didn't sell a car which they very much needed for reliable transportation. They used the government help when they needed it, then regained employment and are once again self-sufficient. This is exactly what these social services are for.
Let's suppose they got no help at all, like you seem to think would have been fair. They probably would have had to sell the car in order to feed their children (and themselves). They would have soon lost all modes of personal transportation, in fact, because their Honda broke down (and are you going to spend cash to repair it when you need every dime you have for food?). Therefore, they would have relied almost entirely on public transportation. The difficulty of finding new employment just doubled, meaning that the length of time they face poverty probably also just doubled.
But selling that car didn't fix the fundamental mathematical problem of "income < expenses." It only provided temporary capital at the expense of personal transportation and probably employment, meaning it actually exacerbated the real problem, which is increasing income rather than immediate cash reserves.
Oh, and by the way, back when they were making $120k, and now again that they have decent income again, they were (and now are again) paying so that others can receive the same help in similar situations.
I for one would prefer to live in a world where poverty of the sort seen in your picture doesn't exist. Part of achieving that is being willing to help out others when they hit hard times but aren't necessarily on the verge of death. Raising the standard of living means just that: it means raising the base expectation of what life as a human being entails. When someone faces trouble and falls below that base expectation, others jump in to help.
The worst sin this couple did, as far as I can tell, is they bought some root beer with food stamps and didn't sell a car which they very much needed for reliable transportation. They used the government help when they needed it, then regained employment and are once again self-sufficient. This is exactly what these social services are for.
Let's suppose they got no help at all, like you seem to think would have been fair. They probably would have had to sell the car in order to feed their children (and themselves). They would have soon lost all modes of personal transportation, in fact, because their Honda broke down (and are you going to spend cash to repair it when you need every dime you have for food?). Therefore, they would have relied almost entirely on public transportation. The difficulty of finding new employment just doubled, meaning that the length of time they face poverty probably also just doubled.
But selling that car didn't fix the fundamental mathematical problem of "income < expenses." It only provided temporary capital at the expense of personal transportation and probably employment, meaning it actually exacerbated the real problem, which is increasing income rather than immediate cash reserves.
Oh, and by the way, back when they were making $120k, and now again that they have decent income again, they were (and now are again) paying so that others can receive the same help in similar situations.
Poor has always been relative and had extremes. Her story sounds like the upper end of poor [1]. They had no cash, stuck with a mountain of debt (relative to their significantly reduced income) and two children in poor health, all on $25k per year income. In the US, that's poor.
[1] Meaning, with resolution to their house situation, they might've been ok. But that's a huge expenditure each month with a risk of homelessness if they fail to make the payments.
[1] Meaning, with resolution to their house situation, they might've been ok. But that's a huge expenditure each month with a risk of homelessness if they fail to make the payments.
Yep! Even if the two children were in perfect health, four people on $25k is still very poor.
(Four people on $25k/year is nearly at the poverty line of $23,580 - http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm )
(Four people on $25k/year is nearly at the poverty line of $23,580 - http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm )
They mention her job was $25k, but shouldn't he have qualified for unemployment insurance payments? For at least the first year or so?
Possibly, I've never had to deal with unemployment insurance so I have no idea what qualifies someone or how much you receive as compensation or for how long.
In my state the only qualifications are that you paid the insurance for the last x months, and didn't quit or get fired for good reason.
Your image of what "poor" is exists in this country; it just manifests itself in different ways and is largely ignored by, well, just about everybody (who isn't poor). I grew up in neighborhoods where, while not apparently starving as the person in your image, we were certainly undernourished and stressed in many other ways. What you "guess" with respect to "being poor" is, to be perfectly blunt, a guess made from apparent ignorance (not stupidity or intellectual ability; ignorance can be remedied by education).
Setting your rather narrow and shallow understanding of what "poor" is aside, the subject of this article is poor by American standards, and at least the way I read it the point isn't "pity us because we're on food stamps" so much as it is that the attitude of "being poor ought to be an humiliating condition" is ingrained in America.
Setting your rather narrow and shallow understanding of what "poor" is aside, the subject of this article is poor by American standards, and at least the way I read it the point isn't "pity us because we're on food stamps" so much as it is that the attitude of "being poor ought to be an humiliating condition" is ingrained in America.
That image makes me think of poverty, rather than being "poor." Although, I make this distinction in my head.
wtf subreddit is this again?
The "2003 Mercedes Kompressor" talked about in the article could be one of two models:
On their combined income (~$120k), my suspicion is that it was the C230 and not the SLK...
Note that both are worth very little today. They're just old, crappy cars like any other. Your old Honda may in fact have fewer mechanical issues at this point. People revere the badge even on older vehicles where it no longer means much.
If the middle-aged Mercedes they had was running and reliable, they were prudent to keep it. The cost of trading down to an unknown car with potential unknown mechanical issues would likely not save them any money. It's possible it could end up costing more.
When you are cash flow poor, reducing out-of-pocket expenses is the first priority. Liquidating assets to raise cash is a quick one-time fix, it's being done at a time when you have no leverage with which to get maximum value out of those asset sales, and does nothing to resolve the larger problem of income < expenses.
It is unfortunate, I think, that however prudent and reasonable their choices, the cognitive dissonance created by the sight of the "luxury" car at the food stamp offices is going put them at odds with public opinion.