19 votes

Why are we so quick to scrutinise how low-income families spend their money?

6 comments

  1. [2]
    Seven
    Link
    The perception that poor people "need" less than rich people is so deeply ingrained in capitalistic society that we mostly don't even realize it. I am reminded of a quote from Ian Danskin of...

    The perception that poor people "need" less than rich people is so deeply ingrained in capitalistic society that we mostly don't even realize it. I am reminded of a quote from Ian Danskin of Innuendo Studios:

    How can conservatives say $15 an hour is too much for flipping burgers but somehow $11.5 million an hour isn’t too much to run Amazon? Because, if you’re flipping burgers, you’re a minnow, and you don’t need $15 an hour to be a minnow. But sharks, they deserve all they can get because they know what to do with it. They use it to give us Amazon. Don’t you want Amazon?

    15 votes
    1. vord
      Link Parent
      That quote is a fantastic one. If you're concerned about how expensive fast food would be with a living wage, maybe you should be more concerned that your lifestyle depends on sub-living wages...

      That quote is a fantastic one. If you're concerned about how expensive fast food would be with a living wage, maybe you should be more concerned that your lifestyle depends on sub-living wages (which I consider akin to slavery).

      12 votes
  2. [4]
    Algernon_Asimov
    Link
    I found myself questioning the assumptions of this study. I feel like the psychologists are missing the forest for the trees. I think this is just slightly off the mark - subtly, but importantly....

    I found myself questioning the assumptions of this study. I feel like the psychologists are missing the forest for the trees.

    These findings suggest that people believe low-income individuals need particular items less than high-income individuals — and further studies showed that purchases that were considered less necessary were, in turn, considered less permissible.

    I think this is just slightly off the mark - subtly, but importantly.

    Some things are more necessary to human life than others. That's a given. To take the example mentioned in the article, food is more necessary to human life than a television. A lack of a television won't kill you or make you sick, but a lack of food can do so.

    So people need food more than they need televisions.

    And when deciding whether to gift a low-income individual either a $100 grocery voucher or a $200 electronics voucher, only a quarter of participants went for the latter, even though it was worth twice as much.

    Those participants may think $100 worth of groceries is more helpful to a low-income individual than $200 of electronics. As I described above, a lack of a television won't kill you, but a lack of food will. And poor people are more likely to not have enough food, so a food voucher has a higher utility for poor people than electronic goods. It's not that the participants think it's not permissible for low-income people to buy a television, but that it's more helpful for them to buy food. On the other hand, a high-income person can probably already afford all the food they need, so a groceries voucher has lower utility for them than a voucher for electronic goods.

    I think this study needs further... umm... study. I think the psychologists are making assumptions about people's motivations. They're observing the behaviour of people allocating resources to low-income people and high-income people, but they're not interrogating the motives behind that behaviour.

    8 votes
    1. vord
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      My interpretation, the behavior they're studying is the same behavior that fuels the 'millenials as irresponsible because of avocado toast' meme. It's this callousnous, a disconnect, which implies...

      My interpretation, the behavior they're studying is the same behavior that fuels the 'millenials as irresponsible because of avocado toast' meme.

      It's this callousnous, a disconnect, which implies the poor (which millenials largely are) don't deserve to enjoy their lives, and that because they are poor they must be treated as children.

      And that's why I'm big on leveling off society. Anybody richer than me doesn't comprehend problems from people at my level or below. Problems people below me have are flat-out inhumane.

      UBI, which has no means testing, helps level things off, and gives more leeway for people to choose how to best spend that.

      14 votes
    2. [2]
      mftrhu
      Link Parent
      I think it's interesting how "electronics voucher" invoked the image of a starving family getting a brand new TV. But most low-income families, I'd wager, are not literally starving: they would...

      I think it's interesting how "electronics voucher" invoked the image of a starving family getting a brand new TV.

      But most low-income families, I'd wager, are not literally starving: they would have enough money to barely afford food, rent and utilities, which would leave them with little to spend on such excesses as buying a phone, a second-hand laptop, a new fridge or a dish washing machine.

      The fact that the larger electronics vouchers were alloted to the wealthier families evokes Vimes' Boots theory of socioeconomic inequality: we need these devices - phones and computers - to effectively participate in society, much like one of the Night Watch might need boots, but if you can afford to spend more on it from the beginning - if you can get something that is not grossly underpowered - then you'll end up spending less over a couple of years.

      I also want to add that groceries are an ongoing expense, one that a voucher won't help much with: $100 might buy enough food for a family for a week or two, but its impact won't last much longer.

      A larger voucher for electronical devices, though, will "parry" what is effectively an one-off expense with the potential to increase morale, improve one's grades, help connect with friends, or possibly save you an hour of dish washing every day - and that, it seems, is being underestimated, possibly because it is difficult to quantify.

      13 votes
      1. Algernon_Asimov
        Link Parent
        This reminds me of something I heard once: it's cheaper to buy expensive shoes than cheap shoes (because the cheap shoes will need replacing more often than the expensive ones). Unfortunately,...

        if you can afford to spend more on it from the beginning - if you can get something that is not grossly underpowered - then you'll end up spending less over a couple of years.

        This reminds me of something I heard once: it's cheaper to buy expensive shoes than cheap shoes (because the cheap shoes will need replacing more often than the expensive ones). Unfortunately, it's harder to pay large one-off expenses than to pay small regular expenses (which is why services like AfterPay are so successful).

        I also want to add that groceries are an ongoing expense, one that a voucher won't help much with: $100 might buy enough food for a family for a week or two, but its impact won't last much longer.

        That's a good point. But if we're examining the thought processes of the people in this study, I doubt they would think like this. I expect that most people would just assume that buying food is more important than buying electronics, and make their judgements accordingly.

        5 votes