6 ms·

It's also owning lower quality goods, that plague you by breaking all the time. So the maintenance cost (time and energy) is quite high. It's almost better not

It's also owning lower quality goods, that plague you by breaking all the time. So the maintenance cost (time and energy) is quite high. It's almost better not to have things when you're poor, because the things you have are just a big headache. I think it's also that increasingly working people are living in old houses that were never built properly, and now have lots of problems. And even new things you buy, are just kind of annoying. I have an LG electric stove. Instead of modulating heat, it pulses the burner top. So you can't effectively lower the heat, just extend the time it takes to cook. The oven timer doesn't turn off, it tries to keep the food warm, and plays chime every minute. Exactly opposite of what I want, since I cook food for my dog and want the food to cool off. And it's stuff like that, the constant annoyance of dealing with badly designed products, and things breaking. I had 2 driers break (all plastic parts), and a washing machine that started leaking oil inside that damaged the clothes in the last year. It's the cumulative effect of dealign with lower quality things.

energy123 10mo ago
I've heard it described that being poor is expensive. The poorer you are the more expensive it is. Being poor in a poor country is the most expensive. You can't just buy coffee, you can only afford a sachet of coffee. So per gram you're paying double. You can't afford medical care, so the condition gets worse and thus more expensive to do something about. You're in debt most of the time, which is expensive. You have to travel for work, again expensive. You rent, expensive. It must be awful.
- gdulli 10mo ago
  When I think of so many people who can least afford to do so buying everyday items at dollar stores, CVS, gas stations, and other convenience stores with such high unit prices it bums me out.
- kgwgk 10mo ago
  > You can't just buy coffee, you can only afford a sachet of coffee. Imagine if they tried to do without coffee until they saved a few dollars for a can. It could take years!
- dukeofdoom 10mo ago
  I think its some sort of decline thats happening Some of is dumb environmental policy. Showerheads that don't spray enough water. Dishwashers that don't wash properly so you need to wash dishes before you put them in and after you take them out. Time of use pricing that means you need to cook at inconvenient times, and even still most of the bill is fixed charges. It's just going on. The decline in Canada seems like its mostly targeted towards poor people. I know a family friend that has a broken bone leg is waiting months for a specialist when anytime he could get an infection and die from infection. Totally preventable even in a third world country, yet it is what it is. My mom also know somone thats waiting for a proecdure too, and they asked hime multiple times if he wants to do Maid. It's almost cynical.
- thehappypm 10mo ago
  The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-575-05503-0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-575-0550...
mc32 10mo ago
Poor people also can use a washboard and line dry their clothing. Not as convenient as having machines but just about everyone did it like this till the ‘40s & ‘50s.
- filleduchaos 10mo ago
  Have you ever in your life washed a load of laundry by hand?
  - mc32 10mo ago
    I have in fact when I was a student. Granted they were only my clothes and I tried not to dirty them but also used a laundromat in most instances. Sometimes would ask a friend for access to a machine.
    - filleduchaos 10mo ago
      I have had to do actual loads of laundry (for a household, and not just clothes - towels, beddings, and more), entirely by hand, no laundromat or friend with access to a machine, which is why I ask. It is both back-breaking and time-intensive especially if you are trying to get clean laundry not just "smells of detergent" laundry. And especially if there's someone who does manual labour in the household - getting heavy stains out effectively doubles your workload. There are many people who cannot just "try not to dirty" their clothes. I am not trying to downplay your experience. But student poverty and poverty in the adult world without all the cushioning of a campus are very different kettles of fish.
      - mc32 10mo ago
        It is —but there are also the Amish and others like them who do lots of things manually and try to avoid many modern conveniences. I don’t think they live poor lives. Definitely better than the poor in the countryside who don’t have the same ingrained customs who often need government help.
CallMeJim 10mo ago
How much would you save yearly if you didn't have a dog? A few accumulated years of those savings would let you buy a better-quality drier or washing machine - saving you from replacing them regularly, or replacing your damaged clothes. Pets are a choice that's fairly high up the Maslow hierarchy. Get rid of them, get into a better position, build up some reserves, and leave your family in a better place than you started. Also raise your family so they have the same mindset - they need to leave their children in a better place than they started.
- dukeofdoom 10mo ago
  Dog food is about $30 a week.
  - CallMeJim 10mo ago
    $1,360 a year. Use it to buy higher quality goods that will save you more in the long run. Use the ongoing $1,360 a year PLUS the accumulating savings gained from the higher quality goods to repeat at higher levels. A lot of the discourse about poverty reminds me of this: > I do occasional work for my hospital’s Addiction Medicine service, and a lot of our conversations go the same way. > My attending tells a patient trying to quit that she must take a certain pill that will decrease her drug cravings. He says it is mostly covered by insurance, but that there will be a copay of about one hundred dollars a week. > The patient freaks out. “A hundred dollars a week? There’s no way I can get that much money!” > My attending asks the patient how much she spends on heroin. > The patient gives a number like thirty or forty dollars a day, every day. > My attending notes that this comes out to $210 to $280 dollars a week, and suggests that she quit heroin, take the anti-addiction pill, and make a “profit” of $110. > At this point the patient always shoots my attending an incredibly dirty look. Like he’s cheating somehow. Just because she has $210 a week to spend on heroin doesn’t mean that after getting rid of that she’d have $210 to spend on medication. Sure, these fancy doctors think they’re so smart, what with their “mathematics” and their “subtracting numbers from other numbers”, but they’re not going to fool her. > At this point I accept this as a fact of life. Whatever my patients do to get money for drugs – and I don’t want to know – it’s not something they can do to get money to pay for medication, or rehab programs, or whatever else. I don’t even think it’s consciously about them caring less about medication than about drugs, I think that they would be literally unable to summon the motivation necessary to get that kind of cash if it were for anything less desperate than feeding an addiction. From https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/25/apologia-pro-vita-sua/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/25/apologia-pro-vita-sua/
Ccecil 10mo ago
It's been posted here before...Vime's boots. https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots-theory-of-socio-economic-unfairness/ https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots...
_vaporwave_ 10mo ago
This is basically the "Boots theory": > A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory

energy123 10mo ago

I've heard it described that being poor is expensive. The poorer you are the more expensive it is. Being poor in a poor country is the most expensive. You can't just buy coffee, you can only afford a sachet of coffee. So per gram you're paying double. You can't afford medical care, so the condition gets worse and thus more expensive to do something about. You're in debt most of the time, which is expensive. You have to travel for work, again expensive. You rent, expensive. It must be awful.

gdulli 10mo ago
When I think of so many people who can least afford to do so buying everyday items at dollar stores, CVS, gas stations, and other convenience stores with such high unit prices it bums me out.
kgwgk 10mo ago
> You can't just buy coffee, you can only afford a sachet of coffee. Imagine if they tried to do without coffee until they saved a few dollars for a can. It could take years!
dukeofdoom 10mo ago
I think its some sort of decline thats happening Some of is dumb environmental policy. Showerheads that don't spray enough water. Dishwashers that don't wash properly so you need to wash dishes before you put them in and after you take them out. Time of use pricing that means you need to cook at inconvenient times, and even still most of the bill is fixed charges. It's just going on. The decline in Canada seems like its mostly targeted towards poor people. I know a family friend that has a broken bone leg is waiting months for a specialist when anytime he could get an infection and die from infection. Totally preventable even in a third world country, yet it is what it is. My mom also know somone thats waiting for a proecdure too, and they asked hime multiple times if he wants to do Maid. It's almost cynical.
thehappypm 10mo ago
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. ... A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socio-economic unfairness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-575-05503-0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-575-0550...

mc32 10mo ago

Poor people also can use a washboard and line dry their clothing. Not as convenient as having machines but just about everyone did it like this till the ‘40s & ‘50s.

filleduchaos 10mo ago
Have you ever in your life washed a load of laundry by hand?
- mc32 10mo ago
  I have in fact when I was a student. Granted they were only my clothes and I tried not to dirty them but also used a laundromat in most instances. Sometimes would ask a friend for access to a machine.
  - filleduchaos 10mo ago
    I have had to do actual loads of laundry (for a household, and not just clothes - towels, beddings, and more), entirely by hand, no laundromat or friend with access to a machine, which is why I ask. It is both back-breaking and time-intensive especially if you are trying to get clean laundry not just "smells of detergent" laundry. And especially if there's someone who does manual labour in the household - getting heavy stains out effectively doubles your workload. There are many people who cannot just "try not to dirty" their clothes. I am not trying to downplay your experience. But student poverty and poverty in the adult world without all the cushioning of a campus are very different kettles of fish.
    - mc32 10mo ago
      It is —but there are also the Amish and others like them who do lots of things manually and try to avoid many modern conveniences. I don’t think they live poor lives. Definitely better than the poor in the countryside who don’t have the same ingrained customs who often need government help.

CallMeJim 10mo ago

How much would you save yearly if you didn't have a dog? A few accumulated years of those savings would let you buy a better-quality drier or washing machine - saving you from replacing them regularly, or replacing your damaged clothes. Pets are a choice that's fairly high up the Maslow hierarchy. Get rid of them, get into a better position, build up some reserves, and leave your family in a better place than you started. Also raise your family so they have the same mindset - they need to leave their children in a better place than they started.

dukeofdoom 10mo ago
Dog food is about $30 a week.
- CallMeJim 10mo ago
  $1,360 a year. Use it to buy higher quality goods that will save you more in the long run. Use the ongoing $1,360 a year PLUS the accumulating savings gained from the higher quality goods to repeat at higher levels. A lot of the discourse about poverty reminds me of this: > I do occasional work for my hospital’s Addiction Medicine service, and a lot of our conversations go the same way. > My attending tells a patient trying to quit that she must take a certain pill that will decrease her drug cravings. He says it is mostly covered by insurance, but that there will be a copay of about one hundred dollars a week. > The patient freaks out. “A hundred dollars a week? There’s no way I can get that much money!” > My attending asks the patient how much she spends on heroin. > The patient gives a number like thirty or forty dollars a day, every day. > My attending notes that this comes out to $210 to $280 dollars a week, and suggests that she quit heroin, take the anti-addiction pill, and make a “profit” of $110. > At this point the patient always shoots my attending an incredibly dirty look. Like he’s cheating somehow. Just because she has $210 a week to spend on heroin doesn’t mean that after getting rid of that she’d have $210 to spend on medication. Sure, these fancy doctors think they’re so smart, what with their “mathematics” and their “subtracting numbers from other numbers”, but they’re not going to fool her. > At this point I accept this as a fact of life. Whatever my patients do to get money for drugs – and I don’t want to know – it’s not something they can do to get money to pay for medication, or rehab programs, or whatever else. I don’t even think it’s consciously about them caring less about medication than about drugs, I think that they would be literally unable to summon the motivation necessary to get that kind of cash if it were for anything less desperate than feeding an addiction. From https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/25/apologia-pro-vita-sua/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/05/25/apologia-pro-vita-sua/

Ccecil 10mo ago

It's been posted here before...Vime's boots. https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots-theory-of-socio-economic-unfairness/ https://terrypratchett.com/explore-discworld/sam-vimes-boots...

_vaporwave_ 10mo ago

This is basically the "Boots theory": > A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. ... But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory