Why Poor People Stay Poor

[whatthehey]

18. The old truism really is true

It's expensive to be poor.

But it's that way because we demand it. Volume discounts, bulk pricing. Everyone who can afford it uses it, because it saves us money, and that means CPG companies do more of it. Entire huge companies including DU fave Costco exist because of that. If a dozen rolls of TP gets us a discount, by definition it must cost more for those who cannot spare that in one go.

Then access to money comes in. Here it is at least bad credit rather than being poor which is expensive, but it takes a very disciplined and forward thinking person in poverty to maintain good credit. It's doable, but not easy, but it's a fallacy that banks charge fees because you are poor. They charge them because you don't have a good enough FICO score to get free checking accounts. These are reserved not for the rich, but for people who have avoided stiffing creditors. Much much easier to do when not poor for sure, but not impossible when you are.

Housing. There are real reasons why this is expensive for the poor. I'm one of those evil landlords btw. You know, people who provide housing for those who cannot or do not want to secure mortgages. Not sure what you think such folks should do without landlords. I rent 2br houses, not apartments, in good repair and safe if blue collar areas. My MOST expensive is 600/mo. Haven't raised rents in 5 years. Ask for a security deposit and first month rent not last month too as people here assume. But do you know why others do that? Because in those 5 years with 4 houses I have NEVER received the last month's rent. I coun't myself lucky if I only get the last month skipped. I've never gone from one tenant to the next without having to pay for carpet cleaning at least and repair/painting normally. Why? My own house doesn't need these things every year, but every single renter has left something to fix. I'm sure there are many responsible, careful renters out there but I've seen far more renters than most of you (I worked at a large apartment complex for a while too) and I assure you they are a tiny minority. Landlords must recoup that, higher property taxes, and the upkeep of houses on top of their investments, and we assume renters will be irresponsible and costly because frankly that's the norm we experience. Homeowners tend not to call out repairmen at 10 o clock at night when the pilot light on their stove goes out. Landlords get that call routinely. Homeowners usually clean up spills on the carpets before they stain irrevocably, and keep their kids from gouging drywall. That's pretty much a baseline expectation from rental turnover. If you are a renter and feeling offended, if you ever got even part of your security deposit back, then a) it's not you I'm discussing and b) you are one of a select few.

After my recent move I turned mine over to a professional management company. His advice? Charge higher rents. It will elevate the socioeconomic echelon of the tenants which means better payment and less damage. This from a fellow of late middle age with a generation's experience in the trade and a Bernie bumper sticker. Ask yourself what that means for renters. If you rent a cheap place you are expected to be irresponsible and charged with that assumption in mind. If you're renting a higher priced place it is probably more expensive than it should be to get people who are irresponsible out of it. A vicious cycle. Do venal gouging landlords exist? Of course and they are legion, and in hot markets like SoCal they are tempted beyond even saintly restraint with soaring market prices to boot. But even in flyover country when renters can pick and choose modestly priced options, and even with no intent to gouge, it doesn't take too much experience of renting to strangers to show anyone the hidden expenses renters never think of, and seemingly never realize they caused in the first place.

Transportation is a real killer. Cheap cars abound, but are largely unreliable, uneconomical and even the bare minimum of insurance is high when you likely live in a high vandalism/theft area. It's likely cheaper to seek out a discounted $150/month lease on a new compact than it is to keep a succession of $1000 twenty year old rustbuckets going, and damned more pleasant, but you need that credit again. That's why the number one best thing you can do to get out of poverty is don't stiff people who have access to credit agencies. Pay them first and stiff the others.

But yes to again risk DU ire choice matters too. Poverty is not a moral failing but not trying to escape it is a moral choice. Yes you'll pay more for toiletries and insurance and dozens more through no fault of your own, but the way to stop doing that most effectively is to give yourself the best chance of affording a more cost-effective life, which means having the money to buy TP in bulk by having a smaller TV or generic sneakers, maintaining credit so you don't have to pay 3% to Western Union instead of mailing a check. Keeping your rented place clean and in good shape so you get a deposit back and a refernce that means you don't have to pay first and last. It seems so nice and liberal and fair to say that poor people deserve to have nice things and fun experiences too, but when the iPhone or the Nikes come at the expense of food or shelter or financial stability, the wisdom of those choices is supported only by the most vapidly naive.

It's expensive to be poor. It should not be. It really should not be by choice.