Interesting report on the poor

[disneysteve]

The Brookings Institute has a report out talking about how the poor in this country pay more for a lot of goods and services. There are a variety of reasons for this: location, credit risk, transportation issues.

http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20060718_PovOpes.pdf

For example, the poor tend to pay higher auto insurance rates because they live in areas with higher crime rates. They tend to pay more for groceries because the big chains don't open in the poorer neighborhoods so the residents are stuck shopping at small convenience stores. They have less access to the financial services that many of us take for granted, like high yield Internet savings accounts, instead depending on local banks and check-cashing stores.

Nothing in the report is really earth-shattering, all common sense stuff. Just a good wake-up call to how many of our neighbors live.

 

[imsayin]

They tend to pay more for groceries because the big chains don't open in the poorer neighborhoods so the residents are stuck shopping at small convenience stores.

This is a big issue in parts of Chicago. There was an article in the paper recently that also pointed out no availability of grocery stores, only fast food places. The point was that it was affecting the health of the poor. Even the big chains that move into poorer neighborhoods price their items higher than they would in another neighborhood.

 

[disnutt]

Even the big chains that move into poorer neighborhoods price their items higher than they would in another neighborhood.

I've also seen them transfer items that are at or over their expiration date to the poorer neighborhoods. That is so wrong!

 

[gina2000]

Well, then, maybe it's easy to see why the getting out from under poverty is so difficult. The grass IS greener on the other side.....and it's awfully hard to get to.

 

[bicker]

This same issue comes up every so often; same area of study, so they find the same results. The only thing that varies is how much or how little the general public claims to care. Remarkably, that doesn't seem to have much impact on what is done in response to the information. Can we conclude that, regardless of how much people care about this, there aren't that many people who translate that care in a willingness to transfer wealth to the poor, from themselves or from others (even indirectly, in the form of imposing laws to even the playing field with respect to the cost of things)?

 

[kpgclark]

Sorry but that is just incorrect about transfer of wealth. We pay A LOT of taxes-- A LOT. How much do the poor pay-- none. In fact many take money from the state. Our family donates a lot of money to charity-- how much do poor donate? None because they have no money to donate. To say that the more wealthy are not willing to give is soooo wrong. Look at the wealthiest people in the US-- Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Huge donators. I disagree that people don't care. People do care and people DO donate not just money but time to help. The poor also have to be willing to help themselves which they often aren't willing to do. They have children without being fincancially able to take care of them for example. Their parents often don't encourage children to do well in school which would help the next generation of poor. They pay high interest because they are a HIGH RISK.

 

[Fly me with Balloons]

Sorry but that is just incorrect about transfer of wealth. We pay A LOT of taxes-- A LOT. How much do the poor pay-- none. In fact many take money from the state. Our family donates a lot of money to charity-- how much do poor donate? None because they have no money to donate. To say that the more wealthy are not willing to give is soooo wrong. Look at the wealthiest people in the US-- Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Huge donators. I disagree that people don't care. People do care and people DO donate not just money but time to help. The poor also have to be willing to help themselves which they often aren't willing to do. They have children without being fincancially able to take care of them for example. Their parents often don't encourage children to do well in school which would help the next generation of poor. They pay high interest because they are a HIGH RISK.

Absolutely right on.

 

[tatooed goofy]

There was an article in the Milwaukee Journal today. It was about a man in Kansas I believe who found savings bonds in a dumpster while he was looking for recycled cans and bottles. They were worth $21,000. He turned them in since he felt they were not his and he was not entitled to them. They were in some clothling that had been thrown out. The family of the man whose name was on them were grateful and gave the man $100.00 as a reward. The man who owned the bonds passed away in 2004. They threw out some clothes of his as they were cleaning. They don't know how they got thrown out. Just shows you that no matter how bad off you may get, some values and lessons can still be learned. I was so impressed by this man and his honesty, integrity, and overall values. I made my DD's read the article. WOW...that is all I said when I was done! WOW!!

 

[deltachi8]

Even the big chains that move into poorer neighborhoods price their items higher than they would in another neighborhood.

Often the cost of operating a Wal-K-Target-Mart or large grocery store is higher such a neighborhood - thus higher prices. (Many times there are additional costs such as added security, cleaning, higher turnover, etc.)

As many of these stores price things regionally or by market, it is less of profitable to open and run these stores in a distressed urban area than it is in the burbs. If they charged more in those areas they run the risk of being labled discriminatory. FOr a large chain, its not worth it.

RIght or worng there just are some realities to the situation. I useto live in the city of Buffalo and enjoyed it. However, I knew I was going to be in my car headed to the suburbs for my groceries, etc if I wante dto pay the better price. My rent was lower though, so there are trade offs.

 

[disneysteve]

Can we conclude that, regardless of how much people care about this, there aren't that many people who translate that care in a willingness to transfer wealth to the poor, from themselves or from others (even indirectly, in the form of imposing laws to even the playing field with respect to the cost of things)?

I'm not exactly sure what it is you are suggesting. Do you think there should be laws requiring retailers to open stores in poor neighborhoods, or to lower prices despite higher operating costs? Do you think insurance companies shouldn't take local crime rates or customer credit risk into account when setting premiums?

 

[barkley]

it's not just based on what operating costs run for a grocery store-it's also what they can get from consumers.

we live in a town (very minute low income population) that is in between 2 much larger towns-for decades the only grocery options here were a small privatly owned store which catered largely to the hispanic population carrying alot of certain types of meats and products-very pricey in my opinion, and a safeway store. while the safeway ran the same specials as the safeway's in the larger towns-the rest of the items were as much as twice as costly as they were in their other town counter-parts. we had a super-walmart go in last year, and surprise surprise-safeway's prices are now the same as they are in the larger towns. they are no longer 'the only game in town' and have to offer lower prices to keep the customers coming in (they are still way more expensive than super walmart-but much more in keeping with their counter-parts).

there are def. bsns. that take advantage of low income people and that makes it harder on them as consumers, but i have to say that in alot of the cases i handled in social services the worst enemies economicaly the clients had were themselves. i worked in a region of the san francisco bay area that had some of the richest and poorest residents. to try to help people stretch their meager welfare checks/food stamps we did alot of counseling on budgeting and economics. talked to clients about comparing prices and trying to get the best value for the money-many had the mindset of 'i won't go to 'x' store-i ONLY shop at 'y' (the realy high end 'trendy' grocery store that was a good distance away from them in the wealthier end of town), 'pack my lunch for work?-no-way, i NEED my 'lunch dates' every day with the 'girls'' (paid more for lunch and their starbucks than they made each day ), 'drop all the premium channels and pay per views-NO WAY!". they opted out of free checking/savings accounts (with no fees for atm use) at large national banks that had special programs for our clients because they did'nt want to be 'seen' at that bank. it realy got frustrating when you tried to explain that if they were on a program that provided funding for a limited period of time after which they had to pick up the full cost (like child care or housing subsidies that helped for 6 months until their probation period at a job was passed and they were making a decent wage) it was best to go with a child care program or house that their anticipated wage could cover-nope, they opted most times to go with the 'fast food' high end child care center whose monthly fee was over 50% of their gross, and the house that once their subsidy ended would rent at twice their total monthly income. the attitude was 'i want it now, i'll worry about it when it happens'

the truly successful folks were those that took the information we provided and went running with it-i had families that realized what bulk buying power could do for them, so they all kicked in and got a costco membership. they'de get together and figure out what they needed grocery wise, bought it bulk and split it up. if someone was making a trip in their car to an adjacent area that had some good stores for getting deals at (like the same chain store as in their area but better prices)-everyone kept a running list of items they would have that person pick up (diapers-insanely expensive at their local store could be bought at half the cost down the road). while some of these people might never get 'off the system' due to health or other long term issues they were able to maintain a decent quality of life.

dh and i are looking at moving in the next year, we joke that if we want to see what the true social/economic dynamics of a community are we have only to look at the local yellow pages-if there is a proliferation of check cashing stores, pawn shops, 'rent to own's', and motels that offer weekly and monthly rates we know it's likely a much lower standard of living.

 

[bicker]

Can we conclude that, regardless of how much people care about this, there aren't that many people who translate that care in a willingness to transfer wealth to the poor, from themselves or from others (even indirectly, in the form of imposing laws to even the playing field with respect to the cost of things)?

I'm not exactly sure what it is you are suggesting.

Evident, neither was kpgclark.

I asked a question; I didn't make a statement. (See the question mark?)

Regardless, I surely didn't say that no one cares. I did allude to the fact that the general public doesn't care -- doesn't care enough to "translate that care in a willingness to transfer wealth to the poor, from themselves or from others (even indirectly, in the form of imposing laws to even the playing field with respect to the cost of things)". If they did, then these inequities wouldn't exist.

Do you think there should be laws requiring retailers to open stores in poor neighborhoods, or to lower prices despite higher operating costs? Do you think insurance companies shouldn't take local crime rates or customer credit risk into account when setting premiums?

Absolutely not. I don't believe in such disruptions to the free market.

It's all well-and-good to say "We're giving charity" and "We're paying taxes" but the fact is that the inequities still exist, so what difference does it make that people are charitable and people pay taxes? Clearly those things haven't obviated the inequities of poverty. So I'm not clear what point is being made by raising those objections in response to my question.

 

[nightowlky]

Sorry but that is just incorrect about transfer of wealth. We pay A LOT of taxes-- A LOT. How much do the poor pay-- none. In fact many take money from the state. Our family donates a lot of money to charity-- how much do poor donate? None because they have no money to donate. To say that the more wealthy are not willing to give is soooo wrong. Look at the wealthiest people in the US-- Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. Huge donators. I disagree that people don't care. People do care and people DO donate not just money but time to help. The poor also have to be willing to help themselves which they often aren't willing to do. They have children without being fincancially able to take care of them for example. Their parents often don't encourage children to do well in school which would help the next generation of poor. They pay high interest because they are a HIGH RISK.

Wow, what a broad brush you use to generalize and judge the lower-income and the poor.

Here's the Executive Summary of the report:
http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20060718_PovOpes.pdf

While it does mention that higher risks are involved in dealing w/lower income persons (due to credit risks, etc.), your hyperbole re: the lifestyles of the poor is just ridiculous and baseless.

 

[seashoreCM]

If the residents in those areas drove more carefully their insurance rates would be lower.

If the residents in those areas didn't shoplift so much then stores with equally low prices would be found there.

And I dare say that if a gang of teens sought out and roughed up a shoplifter instead of a smaller kid to get the latter's bike or necklace or lunch money, those teens would not receive greater punishment.

Disney hints:
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/disney.htm

 

[disneysteve]

Here's the Executive Summary of the report:
http://www.brookings.edu/metro/pubs/20060718_PovOpes.pdf

Thanks for the link. I heard the report on the radio and hadn't located the actual report. I added the link to my OP.

 

[nightowlky]

If the residents in those areas drove more carefully their insurance rates would be lower.

If only it were that simple.

If the residents in those areas didn't shoplift so much then stores with equally low prices would be found there.

Wow, I cannot believe this level of broadstroke generalization and judgmental rhetoric!

 

[bevtoy]

Inequities exist between poor, middle class and the "wealthy". (What ever one determines that to be). Poor decision making capabilities play a huge part (but not all) in those living in poverty in America. (putting my flame suit on)

 

[Lisa_M]

We just moved into the city of Reading, PA. Now we have lived there 1 day and although there is alot of poverty there are few promising things I have noticed. There is a strong sense of community there. The kids seem relatively safe playing basketball next door or walking down the street and people say hello to each other. We just moved from our swanky apartment 1/2 hr away to a pretty dumpy apartment. We did this to save money while we are looking for a house since our apartment complex wouldn't let us go month to month after our lease. Our arrangement at the new place is month to month, so the flexibility is a plus for us.

As far as grocery stores go, it is true...there are a couple of privately owned corner stores, but the nearest grocery store, Giant, is a 10 minute drive down the road.

I agree that some are trivializing the situations of folks living in poverty within cities. Yes, some will not utilize the help or have been raised with the mentality that the world owes them, but I think that mentality effects rich and poor alike. The difference is, the rich have a status where this is more accepted among the general population. Please be careful not to judge people to quickly. You and I do not fully understand another person's circumstances and never can.

 

[ducklite]

There was an article in the Milwaukee Journal today. It was about a man in Kansas I believe who found savings bonds in a dumpster while he was looking for recycled cans and bottles. They were worth $21,000. He turned them in since he felt they were not his and he was not entitled to them. They were in some clothling that had been thrown out. The family of the man whose name was on them were grateful and gave the man $100.00 as a reward. The man who owned the bonds passed away in 2004. They threw out some clothes of his as they were cleaning. They don't know how they got thrown out. Just shows you that no matter how bad off you may get, some values and lessons can still be learned. I was so impressed by this man and his honesty, integrity, and overall values. I made my DD's read the article. WOW...that is all I said when I was done! WOW!!

$21,000 in found money and they only gave him $100? Talk about cheap. IMHO they should have given him $500 or $1000. Even for someone with nothing, $100 is nothing. $500 could have been life altering.

JMHO.

Anne

 

[Fly me with Balloons]

If only it were that simple.


Wow, I cannot believe this level of broadstroke generalization and judgmental rhetoric!

One man's judgmental rhetoric is another man's (this one's, for instance) fact.