Why don't poor people understand that spending more money in the moment can be cheaper in the long run?

Can't expect to get out of broke if you don't work hard and make no moves. Some of these lazy bums expect things to magically get better. I do have immense respect for any broke person who's working hard and seeking improvement though.

Do poor people still wear boots?

Well they aren't that poor then.

Actual poor people have a larger problem. Their service and retail wages (that since 1990 don't increase annualy like everyone else's, including their boss') barely cover their rent (that since 1990 had tripled while the apartment or home has been allowed to crumble but still appreciated in value).

Alternatively, their monthly insulin costs more than your stupid boots. No one is poor because of their shoes.

STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^""""-""""--'-"--^' wrote:

Some of these lazy bums expect things to magically get better.

Those low down, no good, lousy, two bit, doyty stinkin lazy bums. Why I oughta...

my Aldens are cheaper than your Target brand wrote:

Can someone explain the logic that a $500 pair of boots that will likely last two decades (and can be resoled and repaired as needed) is "more expensive" than buying a new cheap glued together pair of $30 boots every year over the same time period?

Really? Go ahead and run the present worth on 20 years on an initial investment of $500 boots with resoling and repair every year or two against $30 per year for new boots. Heck, even leave out the repairs and resoling. Let's see how much stupider those poor people are compared to the OP.

I hope you're trolling. Even if you gave numbers that justified your point, this is one of the really stupid things people say about poor people.

Poor people, or even middle class people, rarely have $500 to spend on a pair of shoes when there are more pressing needs.

I don't get the appeal of all the "poor people are stupid" threads on letsrun. Does that really make you feel superior?

Now I remember why I never click on these. You got me on this one. Good trolling I guess.

Well, based on your example, a pair of $30 shoes every year is cheaper than your $500 shoes for 16 years. So, if your shoes last 15 years, they are smarter. Not to mention as you resole and repair, that drives the cost up. Including repairs, two decades of your shoes is probably more expensive than a new pair of $30 shoes every year for 20 years.

I know math is hard.

It's not trolling. It would be trolling if they just wanted bites. But this place is overrun with people who think exactly like OP. It is intended as a pile-on. They are too afraid to bash poor people to anyone in their own lives, for fear of being correctly labeled a hateful moron. So they do it here. It makes them feel smart when the same 20ish posters hop in to each thread like this to say "yes, I agree, let me rephrase the idea you just said".

Right wingers struggling with math. I know, what a shocker. At least you could see it was just another right winger trying to stir up sh!t about people who are not so fortunate in life

sbeefyk2 wrote:

Well, based on your example, a pair of $30 shoes every year is cheaper than your $500 shoes for 16 years. So, if your shoes last 15 years, they are smarter. Not to mention as you resole and repair, that drives the cost up. Including repairs, two decades of your shoes is probably more expensive than a new pair of $30 shoes every year for 20 years.

I know math is hard.

Really hard to blame poor people if you actually admit like 40% of full-time jobs can't cover the cost of living in the areas where the jobs are located.

Easier to pick some random crap like this and claim intellectual superiority. Constructing a mythos with stories about boots or lottery tickets or tattoos is easier than critically appraising macroeconomic conditions and how the average wages/cost of living easily explain WHY it seems like there's so many poor people.

You sound like a rich kid trying to justify why you wear $500 shoes. My bet is you probably buy a new pair each year anyway. No, you are wrong in so many ways. First, your $500 shoes are still only worth about $50 bucks and second, there is virtually no difference between $75 pair of boots and a $500 pair other then the ego of the feet inside them. Time to just accept that you are a little rich kid and feel a bit of guilt rather than act like people are stupid for not being as entitled as you are. Most people can't afford to drop $500 just on a pair of shoes at any given point in time. Despite this, we see lots of idiots willing to drop $2-300 on cheater shoes. Oh well. There is little modesty left in the world, only excess and shame. This whole thread is pretty sad.

My rich friends and I could care less the expense of footwear. Personal shoppers constantly inventory our wardrobes and cycle in new stuff in all the time. If it works I wear it if it doesn't I set it in the return/donate pile. If you analyze the cost of footwear/clothing you are just another poor person acting like you aren't poor.

You get what you pay for.

Because poor people understand the word cash flow better than you do.

As my father said: You can spend your money only once.

The poor people choose to feed their kids first.

People buy $50 shoes because they only have $50. They don't have $600 to spend on Aldens, even if the long-term costs are lower.

You've obviously never been broke.

Because government stimmy checks don't cover the Aldens, only the Target brand

STEVE THE ADDICT^^^^^^""""-""""--'-"--^' wrote:

Can't expect to get out of broke if you don't work hard and make no moves. Some of these lazy bums expect things to magically get better. I do have immense respect for any broke person who's working hard and seeking improvement though.

Yeah, yeah, the old Republican myth. If the poor just worked a little harder they would get what I already got from my parents.

Why try? wrote:

People buy $50 shoes because they only have $50. They don't have $600 to spend on Aldens, even if the long-term costs are lower.

You've obviously never been broke.

Then why does every "broke" person I've ever met have a tattoo? Did they spend their stimmy check on that before shopping for boots?

You're right I've never been broke and don't understand why you would make a series of choices that would lead to being broke.

roller coaster wrote:

Why try? wrote:

People buy $50 shoes because they only have $50. They don't have $600 to spend on Aldens, even if the long-term costs are lower.

You've obviously never been broke.

Then why does every "broke" person I've ever met have a tattoo? Did they spend their stimmy check on that before shopping for boots?

You're right I've never been broke and don't understand why you would make a series of choices that would lead to being broke.

A lot of poor people with tattoos don't pay for them (or at least don't pay retail) . They have a friend do it. That's more common than people realize.

Reminds me of "Boots Theory". I think it's the same exact logic actually: https://moneywise.com/managing-money/budgeting/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness.