And your inability to understand why arguing by anecdote doesn't actually prove anything shows that you don't understand what you're talking about, OR basic logic.
Look, no one is arguing that payday loans are a good idea. What I'm saying is that a lot of what you're attributing, without question or thought, to "financial illiteracy" can also have other contributing factors, such as medical necessity, hunger, or other such problems.
Since you're unwilling to accept anything but anecdote, at one point, I was forced to take out a cash advance on my credit card in order to keep my car running. I didn't want to, and I fully understood that it was a terrible method of getting the money - but since my job paid less than rent and board, and my living relatives were in worse financial shape due to my father's actual bad financial decisions and untimely death, there wasn't any other way to get the money available to me, and if my car had failed, I would have lost my job. And before you say "public transportation," bus service ended at 8, and I was responsible for closing a store at 10:00.
"No cancer meds" was sort of a stand-in for "necessary expense that can't be deferred," but does not having an anecdote ready somehow make it a ridiculous proposition? Again, there are reliable studies that show that most credit card debt is assumed from the purchase of necessities, and payday loans are substantially more onerous in their conditions. I could as easily ask you for a direct example of someone taking out a payday loan for something that's not a financial necessity, and you'd presumably be just as unable to give one; or if you can, it shows that you randomly associated with someone who used it that way.
I've shown through anecdote that loans being assumed because of health care necessities exists. It's hugely prevalent, but all I've supported directly is existence, because that's what anecdote can prove, assuming honesty on the part of the relater. I've never heard of anyone using, or even considering using payday loans in a non-emergency situation; I'm sure it happens, but I doubt that it's more prevalent than non-emergency assumption of the much saner and safer credit card debt. I'd be very surprised if it was never used to pay for medical expenses, and I'd want to see some sort of evidence before I took that up as a position.
While this does back up your statement that payday loans tend to be taken out for multiple weeks, it doesn't actually invalidate my premise. In fact, the whole point of payday loans is to squeeze people who don't have other loan options - which largely affects people who have exhausted those options.
Why do you think people engage in these kinds of predatory lending schemes?
That's utterly fair - although I feel there are some programs (libraries, educational outreach, etc) that are valuable, but hard to directly justify financially, especially over the short term.
I'm totally for looking at entitlements with a critical eye to functionality; but by the same token, social safety nets are being reduced without that critical eye, often as political bargaining chips. And, at some point, means-testing and other accountability tests have the potential to turn into denial devices - as they already have with, say, Section 8 housing in Florida, before they froze it altogether.
And I do think it bears repeating that our biggest problems aren't related to entitlement overspending - they're related to our historically low tax rates, and the ridiculous loopholes that allow corporations with billions and trillions in profits to avoid paying taxes. Oh, and two wars.
So, what part of what I said is inaccurate? Where can you provide a compelling argument that your position is right here?
I mean, feel free to flounce, but I would really like to know where your ideas on the assumption of debt in the form of payday loans actually come from.
Also, it's not societal blackmail, "allow me to leech or I'll turn to crime." That's asinine. But there are proven, well established links between poverty and crime rates - largely because desperate men and women do things they ordinarily wouldn't when presented a workable legal option.
These things aren't "open to interpretation" in the way you claim. Poverty relief programs have shown solid real-world numbers in lowering crime rates. In the real world, the presence and absence of social safety nets have real effects, and these are measurable, although there can be complicating factors (complex systems have many contributing factors, etc, etc.)
I'm sorry if you're under some impression that, because I oppose his extremist philosophy, I must buy in to some cartoonish reverse extremist philosophy. Certainly, it's possible to over tax, to overdo social programs, and to fuck everything up by trying too hard to level things.
But since the U.S. currently has a runaway problem of starving social programs, redistributing wealth upward, and blaming it on the poor, you'll pardon me if those are the particular battles I fight. As soon as we're a runaway socialist state that caps income arbitrarily and overspends on social programs, I'll start working on fighting that.
Also, my wife pointed out that recurrent payday loans happen largely because, well, it's essentially loan sharking, and people can't keep up with the interest.
Really? Do you have figures to back up "More common are people who get payday loans every single week." It's pretty widely recognized that most credit card debt is assumed to cover necessities - I'm sincerely doubtful that a class of loans that's higher interest, more dangerous, and recognized across the board as a bad idea is somehow radically different.
A direct friend of mine had to go into deep credit-card debt due solely to an emergency appendix surgery. Previously, he had no credit card debt, reasonable savings.
El Salvador has a worse healthcare system, sure. Are you suggesting that the U.S. should be using a third-world country as our measuring stick?
Really? You do know something about the circumstances of all U.S. poor people, or their decisions in aggregate? Because you haven't remotely shown that to be the case. Note, also, that if the choice is "no cancer meds today, Timmy" or "I'll take out a payday loan," it's not actually cut and dried that letting your kid die is the preferred decision.
No, your point as stated was, and I re-quote:
It's way too easy to remain unemployed. ...
It's just our government messing up its own programs and making things appear worse than they should be.
There's no way to interpret that in context of your following statements except that you think unemployment benefits are too easy to get and/or maintain. If you mis-spoke, then cop to it - otherwise defend your point, instead of trying to morph it into something more palatable on the sly.
Were they riding it out without student loans? Or support from their families? I'm honestly curious.
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that payouts vary both by location (usually state, sometimes city) and by previous occupation. And that what a college student can get by on while living with eight of his friends is different than what a middle-aged professional with a family and pre-existing obligations can. Unemployment isn't aimed (or, honestly, usually collectable) by pre-career students. It's aimed at adults in the workforce who have become unemployed.
One thing PhantomFive never answered (and I didn't ask it very directly, so I'm not attacking him over it) is what his friend's previous salary was. It's almost always substantially less than what you were making beforehand.
I'm sorry, but there are serious problems with this.
For one, unemployment is a temporary benefit. Paying for regular housing is far, far more economical, and makes far more sense than trying to create a new set of housing tracts and then force people to move (which is an additional expense). Additionally, what if they have a paid-up house? It's much simpler and more sensible to pay enough to afford general housing.
The "only enough for food, and none of it goes through the person receiving benefits" thing can look good, but the actual effect is TERRIBLE. It amounts to the government giving a strongly worded message saying "You got fired, so you're no longer a responsible adult citizen. You can't be trusted with the money meant to benefit you, or to know how it would best benefit you." I think the effect has been documented, and my wife has heard it again and again from people on public assistance. Destroying people's dignity makes it harder for them to sell themselves in an interview, you know?
Sales tax isn't really a good idea either, because sales taxes (except arguably luxury taxes) are highly regressive - they increase the burden on people who can't afford it. For example, a $300 dollar tax on HD TVs might look like a good idea, but what it's actually going to do is mean that poor families can't have access to news or other TV, rather than actually generating revenue. Plus, overall sales go down in the face of too-high sales tax.
Income tax is actually one of the least repressive on economic growth, because it doesn't effect purchasing, and is easily staged across different income levels to keep it from being damaging to well-being. It's irritating, but it is also functional - or would be, if we'd increase it to sane levels. We also really need a capital gains tax.
If you're not using financially illiterate as a high-end slur, you're still wrong. I know you countered with the mega-libertarian punch of "Life sucks," but all the things I mentioned fucking happen - people's savings get wiped out, or they never get a chance to accumulate them, based on things they have precious little damn control of. Especially when we have the nightmarish health system we have now. Every time you say "all poor people are financially illiterate," you're passing a judgement on the competence of literally billions of people that you know NOTHING about. I can't see how you think that's reasonable or sensible.
Also, whether or not I know homeless people is pretty immaterial here, but for your information, I have friends who've been homeless, and my wife works at a DV shelter, so I've had a fair amount of second-hand encounters. Also, I bother to, you know, do any damn research at all.
Look, if you're saying that you'd drop out of the workforce in order to collect unemployment, well, fine. In fact, go ahead and do it. But don't pretend that your original point was just "unemployment sounds hot to ME," when your opening statement was:
It's way too easy to remain unemployed.
If you didn't mean to say that unemployment is too easy to get/maintain, then this is a writing failure on your part, not a reading failure.
So, yeah... How about that privilege you got there? Because some people might not be financially illiterate, so much as not making more than their needs. Or they got cancer, or their parent or spouse got cancer, and their means weren't sufficient to keep their loved one alive AND build up a huge savings pool. Or one of the other members of the infinite array of things that can go wrong without someone being stupid or bad for it.
Sorry, but your "if you're poor it's cause you're stupid" narrative has never had any value, and is deeply, deeply disgusting to anyone who's ever actually interacted with someone affected by poverty.
Oh, and you know what - even if you were right (which, let's never forget, you aren't) - your "lets make it harder to keep unemployment" crap is STILL deeply stupid. Because regardless of whether we provide unemployment or other job assistance or not, the unemployed people are still going to exist. And you know what sucks more than paying a small amount of tax dollars into unemployment benefits and job assistance programs? Adding to the homeless problem, the crime rate, and the other problems that poverty serves as a primary driver for. And hey - if they turn to crime, you get to pay, not partial income, but full room and board in one of our fine correctional institutes, which costs a whole lot more than unemployment.
$16k is... pre-tax, in some places, at a fairly low to very low standard of living. And, again, it's not permanent, and isn't even automatically available for a full year. Also, keep in mind that unemployment benefits are usually scaled to your previous salary.
But, regardless, most people wouldn't and don't make that choice. The overwhelming majority of unemployment recipients are on it for shorter than the maximum allowed period.
You did nothing REMOTELY similar to what we're discussing, because you had savings sufficient to choose to delay returning to the workforce. Most people collecting unemployment need that money to maintain families, homes, and food.
A) Where and how is 347/wk covering all of his bills? Because it wouldn't work in Sarasota Florida, I can say from experience.
B) Does the fact that it's temporary somehow not matter because it's extensible in (monitored) emergency circumstances?
C) Is this friend, in fact, not searching for employment? Because I can guarantee you that most people don't just say "Mmmm, delicious - I'm making $16k a year, until benefits end, I have no reason to try and find a job."
You're not supposed to make unemployment hard to get or maintain - because it's meant to alleviate a hardship, and allow people to keep effectively looking for a job, which gets a lot harder when you've lost your housing and communication services.
Kind of depends on your particular circumstances, there. From NASA's page on edible toothpaste:
Also has applications with certain patients who are bedridden, wheelchair confined or patients with oral facial paralysis whose ability to expectorate is limited. Also useful as a first toothpaste for children.
So, hey - it turns out that the problems of widespread rebellion and overtaxation are different in kind from the problems of under-taxation and repressive government policies. Who would have thunk that different problems require different solutions?
I mean, I could quote any number of irrelevant historical situations - but shit, who has the time for worthless endeavors. Short version - in our own history, the same trends we're seeing now (rampant power transfer to corporate entities, drops in collected revenue, reduced regulation) during the Gilded Age led directly into the worst depression the country has ever suffered. OH SNAP IT'S A RELEVANT HISTORICAL PRECEDENT! RUN! IT'S GOING TO GET YOU!
Except that only the first and third of your corrections are even arguably true, and the third is deeply disingenuous.
Besides, and this is something you "tax is theft" people never get - when you cut off social assistance, the people relying on it don't magically disappear. The things keeping them down don't magically stop, either. What happens is they get more desperate, and often turn to crime in order to provide for themselves. And, frankly, that's the rational decision, if it's between your kids starving or stealing some shit or mugging some asshole you don't know.
It's like the relationship between the dismantling of mental health support during the 80s and the increased homeless population - those patients haven't gone away, and people haven't stopped going crazy - it's just that now, when they do, they end up on the street, unmedicated.
Kindle isn't a tablet - it's a dedicated e-Reader. It has close to zero similarity to the tablet form factor - it's not a general computing device, it's not touch screen, etc, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
And your inability to understand why arguing by anecdote doesn't actually prove anything shows that you don't understand what you're talking about, OR basic logic.
Look, no one is arguing that payday loans are a good idea. What I'm saying is that a lot of what you're attributing, without question or thought, to "financial illiteracy" can also have other contributing factors, such as medical necessity, hunger, or other such problems.
Since you're unwilling to accept anything but anecdote, at one point, I was forced to take out a cash advance on my credit card in order to keep my car running. I didn't want to, and I fully understood that it was a terrible method of getting the money - but since my job paid less than rent and board, and my living relatives were in worse financial shape due to my father's actual bad financial decisions and untimely death, there wasn't any other way to get the money available to me, and if my car had failed, I would have lost my job. And before you say "public transportation," bus service ended at 8, and I was responsible for closing a store at 10:00.
"No cancer meds" was sort of a stand-in for "necessary expense that can't be deferred," but does not having an anecdote ready somehow make it a ridiculous proposition? Again, there are reliable studies that show that most credit card debt is assumed from the purchase of necessities, and payday loans are substantially more onerous in their conditions. I could as easily ask you for a direct example of someone taking out a payday loan for something that's not a financial necessity, and you'd presumably be just as unable to give one; or if you can, it shows that you randomly associated with someone who used it that way.
I've shown through anecdote that loans being assumed because of health care necessities exists. It's hugely prevalent, but all I've supported directly is existence, because that's what anecdote can prove, assuming honesty on the part of the relater. I've never heard of anyone using, or even considering using payday loans in a non-emergency situation; I'm sure it happens, but I doubt that it's more prevalent than non-emergency assumption of the much saner and safer credit card debt. I'd be very surprised if it was never used to pay for medical expenses, and I'd want to see some sort of evidence before I took that up as a position.
While this does back up your statement that payday loans tend to be taken out for multiple weeks, it doesn't actually invalidate my premise. In fact, the whole point of payday loans is to squeeze people who don't have other loan options - which largely affects people who have exhausted those options.
Why do you think people engage in these kinds of predatory lending schemes?
That's utterly fair - although I feel there are some programs (libraries, educational outreach, etc) that are valuable, but hard to directly justify financially, especially over the short term.
I'm totally for looking at entitlements with a critical eye to functionality; but by the same token, social safety nets are being reduced without that critical eye, often as political bargaining chips. And, at some point, means-testing and other accountability tests have the potential to turn into denial devices - as they already have with, say, Section 8 housing in Florida, before they froze it altogether.
And I do think it bears repeating that our biggest problems aren't related to entitlement overspending - they're related to our historically low tax rates, and the ridiculous loopholes that allow corporations with billions and trillions in profits to avoid paying taxes. Oh, and two wars.
So, what part of what I said is inaccurate? Where can you provide a compelling argument that your position is right here? I mean, feel free to flounce, but I would really like to know where your ideas on the assumption of debt in the form of payday loans actually come from.
Also, it's not societal blackmail, "allow me to leech or I'll turn to crime." That's asinine. But there are proven, well established links between poverty and crime rates - largely because desperate men and women do things they ordinarily wouldn't when presented a workable legal option.
These things aren't "open to interpretation" in the way you claim. Poverty relief programs have shown solid real-world numbers in lowering crime rates. In the real world, the presence and absence of social safety nets have real effects, and these are measurable, although there can be complicating factors (complex systems have many contributing factors, etc, etc.)
I'm sorry if you're under some impression that, because I oppose his extremist philosophy, I must buy in to some cartoonish reverse extremist philosophy. Certainly, it's possible to over tax, to overdo social programs, and to fuck everything up by trying too hard to level things.
But since the U.S. currently has a runaway problem of starving social programs, redistributing wealth upward, and blaming it on the poor, you'll pardon me if those are the particular battles I fight. As soon as we're a runaway socialist state that caps income arbitrarily and overspends on social programs, I'll start working on fighting that.
Also, my wife pointed out that recurrent payday loans happen largely because, well, it's essentially loan sharking, and people can't keep up with the interest.
Really? Do you have figures to back up "More common are people who get payday loans every single week." It's pretty widely recognized that most credit card debt is assumed to cover necessities - I'm sincerely doubtful that a class of loans that's higher interest, more dangerous, and recognized across the board as a bad idea is somehow radically different.
A direct friend of mine had to go into deep credit-card debt due solely to an emergency appendix surgery. Previously, he had no credit card debt, reasonable savings.
You are correct. My apologies, and please disregard the parts of these posts dealing with that item.
El Salvador has a worse healthcare system, sure. Are you suggesting that the U.S. should be using a third-world country as our measuring stick?
Really? You do know something about the circumstances of all U.S. poor people, or their decisions in aggregate? Because you haven't remotely shown that to be the case. Note, also, that if the choice is "no cancer meds today, Timmy" or "I'll take out a payday loan," it's not actually cut and dried that letting your kid die is the preferred decision.
No, your point as stated was, and I re-quote:
There's no way to interpret that in context of your following statements except that you think unemployment benefits are too easy to get and/or maintain. If you mis-spoke, then cop to it - otherwise defend your point, instead of trying to morph it into something more palatable on the sly.
Were they riding it out without student loans? Or support from their families? I'm honestly curious.
Also, I think it's worth pointing out that payouts vary both by location (usually state, sometimes city) and by previous occupation. And that what a college student can get by on while living with eight of his friends is different than what a middle-aged professional with a family and pre-existing obligations can. Unemployment isn't aimed (or, honestly, usually collectable) by pre-career students. It's aimed at adults in the workforce who have become unemployed.
One thing PhantomFive never answered (and I didn't ask it very directly, so I'm not attacking him over it) is what his friend's previous salary was. It's almost always substantially less than what you were making beforehand.
I'm sorry, but there are serious problems with this.
For one, unemployment is a temporary benefit. Paying for regular housing is far, far more economical, and makes far more sense than trying to create a new set of housing tracts and then force people to move (which is an additional expense). Additionally, what if they have a paid-up house? It's much simpler and more sensible to pay enough to afford general housing.
The "only enough for food, and none of it goes through the person receiving benefits" thing can look good, but the actual effect is TERRIBLE. It amounts to the government giving a strongly worded message saying "You got fired, so you're no longer a responsible adult citizen. You can't be trusted with the money meant to benefit you, or to know how it would best benefit you." I think the effect has been documented, and my wife has heard it again and again from people on public assistance. Destroying people's dignity makes it harder for them to sell themselves in an interview, you know?
Sales tax isn't really a good idea either, because sales taxes (except arguably luxury taxes) are highly regressive - they increase the burden on people who can't afford it. For example, a $300 dollar tax on HD TVs might look like a good idea, but what it's actually going to do is mean that poor families can't have access to news or other TV, rather than actually generating revenue. Plus, overall sales go down in the face of too-high sales tax.
Income tax is actually one of the least repressive on economic growth, because it doesn't effect purchasing, and is easily staged across different income levels to keep it from being damaging to well-being. It's irritating, but it is also functional - or would be, if we'd increase it to sane levels. We also really need a capital gains tax.
Exactly the questions I was about to ask!
If you're not using financially illiterate as a high-end slur, you're still wrong. I know you countered with the mega-libertarian punch of "Life sucks," but all the things I mentioned fucking happen - people's savings get wiped out, or they never get a chance to accumulate them, based on things they have precious little damn control of. Especially when we have the nightmarish health system we have now. Every time you say "all poor people are financially illiterate," you're passing a judgement on the competence of literally billions of people that you know NOTHING about. I can't see how you think that's reasonable or sensible.
Also, whether or not I know homeless people is pretty immaterial here, but for your information, I have friends who've been homeless, and my wife works at a DV shelter, so I've had a fair amount of second-hand encounters. Also, I bother to, you know, do any damn research at all.
Look, if you're saying that you'd drop out of the workforce in order to collect unemployment, well, fine. In fact, go ahead and do it. But don't pretend that your original point was just "unemployment sounds hot to ME," when your opening statement was:
If you didn't mean to say that unemployment is too easy to get/maintain, then this is a writing failure on your part, not a reading failure.
So, yeah... How about that privilege you got there? Because some people might not be financially illiterate, so much as not making more than their needs. Or they got cancer, or their parent or spouse got cancer, and their means weren't sufficient to keep their loved one alive AND build up a huge savings pool. Or one of the other members of the infinite array of things that can go wrong without someone being stupid or bad for it.
Sorry, but your "if you're poor it's cause you're stupid" narrative has never had any value, and is deeply, deeply disgusting to anyone who's ever actually interacted with someone affected by poverty.
Oh, and you know what - even if you were right (which, let's never forget, you aren't) - your "lets make it harder to keep unemployment" crap is STILL deeply stupid. Because regardless of whether we provide unemployment or other job assistance or not, the unemployed people are still going to exist. And you know what sucks more than paying a small amount of tax dollars into unemployment benefits and job assistance programs? Adding to the homeless problem, the crime rate, and the other problems that poverty serves as a primary driver for. And hey - if they turn to crime, you get to pay, not partial income, but full room and board in one of our fine correctional institutes, which costs a whole lot more than unemployment.
$16k is... pre-tax, in some places, at a fairly low to very low standard of living. And, again, it's not permanent, and isn't even automatically available for a full year. Also, keep in mind that unemployment benefits are usually scaled to your previous salary. But, regardless, most people wouldn't and don't make that choice. The overwhelming majority of unemployment recipients are on it for shorter than the maximum allowed period.
You did nothing REMOTELY similar to what we're discussing, because you had savings sufficient to choose to delay returning to the workforce. Most people collecting unemployment need that money to maintain families, homes, and food.
So, questions -
A) Where and how is 347/wk covering all of his bills? Because it wouldn't work in Sarasota Florida, I can say from experience.
B) Does the fact that it's temporary somehow not matter because it's extensible in (monitored) emergency circumstances?
C) Is this friend, in fact, not searching for employment? Because I can guarantee you that most people don't just say "Mmmm, delicious - I'm making $16k a year, until benefits end, I have no reason to try and find a job."
You're not supposed to make unemployment hard to get or maintain - because it's meant to alleviate a hardship, and allow people to keep effectively looking for a job, which gets a lot harder when you've lost your housing and communication services.
Kind of depends on your particular circumstances, there. From NASA's page on edible toothpaste:
So, hey - it turns out that the problems of widespread rebellion and overtaxation are different in kind from the problems of under-taxation and repressive government policies. Who would have thunk that different problems require different solutions?
I mean, I could quote any number of irrelevant historical situations - but shit, who has the time for worthless endeavors. Short version - in our own history, the same trends we're seeing now (rampant power transfer to corporate entities, drops in collected revenue, reduced regulation) during the Gilded Age led directly into the worst depression the country has ever suffered. OH SNAP IT'S A RELEVANT HISTORICAL PRECEDENT! RUN! IT'S GOING TO GET YOU!
You can run it on less gold then. Not as little gold as we currently collect, but less.
Except that only the first and third of your corrections are even arguably true, and the third is deeply disingenuous.
Besides, and this is something you "tax is theft" people never get - when you cut off social assistance, the people relying on it don't magically disappear. The things keeping them down don't magically stop, either. What happens is they get more desperate, and often turn to crime in order to provide for themselves. And, frankly, that's the rational decision, if it's between your kids starving or stealing some shit or mugging some asshole you don't know.
It's like the relationship between the dismantling of mental health support during the 80s and the increased homeless population - those patients haven't gone away, and people haven't stopped going crazy - it's just that now, when they do, they end up on the street, unmedicated.
Kindle isn't a tablet - it's a dedicated e-Reader. It has close to zero similarity to the tablet form factor - it's not a general computing device, it's not touch screen, etc, etc.
1982? The little known prequel? ;-)