another story about how bad the poor have it

again, my gripe in this post are with the article, not with people who live in poverty.

the Washington Post has a new article, "Rental America: Why the poor pay $4150 for a $1500 sofa" that discusses how rent-to-own stores are taking advantage of those living in poverty, by "selling" items to them at 3+ times of retail cost, due to small recurring payments.  the gist of the article is that these companies are taking advantage of these people.  my problem is, this family is not very sympathetic in my eyes.  they spend more money than they have.  for example:

- $4158 for a $1500 sofa (the title of the article).  why are they buying a $1500 sofa anyway?  mine costs $600 new, and it's still quite usable after 8 years.  and from the article-- "She’ll sink into the cushions just before her kids get out of school and say she wouldn’t trade the feeling “for a million bucks.” Normal families have sofas, she says, and you’ll do what it takes to feel normal."  Really?  I would start by not buying the sofa, and sitting on the floor until I have enough to buy one from Goodwill.  you can usually find one for $200.
- $1000 for a new fuel pump on an old Ford truck.  why did they pay double what is necessary?
- smartphone and Samsung speakers from Buddy's.   no price given.  are these purchases necessary?  why not a regular phone (ie w/o smart features, touchscreen, etc)
- "Abbott and Donald smoked a cigarette in the bathroom and sorted through the grim math... By Thursday, $51 of the $230 had already vanished, used for gas and cigarettes." why are they still buying cigarettes? - "they haven't eaten out in 2 months"  that's the best part so far, but the article notes as if it's a bad thing.

a look back at hybrids

I published this post, back in April 2007, on the hybrid myth (of savings).  I just came across this article that the NYT published in April 2012, which they commissioned TrueCar.com (a $1B+ automative research startup based out of Santa Monica) on the savings of hybrids (and other efficient vehicles).

good to know we're on the same page.

another sob story (gone wrong)

To the Woman Behind Me in Line at the Grocery Store is another story about how someone helped out a family in need, when they couldn't pay for something at the grocery store.

I am happy that the person behind her helped her in a time of need.  what I don't understand is how she can claim to be so in need, yet make the purchases that she does.

Above is the image of her receipt.  here are my objections to her purchase
- she is buying gluten free yogurt.  does her children really have a gluten intolerance?
- she is buying Sargento string cheese for $5.  I'm sure there is cheaper (generically branded) cheese then Sargento
- she is buying Juicy Juice Apple Quench for $4.  how about buying a 64oz, instead of 8 small 6oz boxes?
- she is buying Altoids at $2.09.  how come she does not mention the breath mints in her post?  and how come she was attempting to purchase this with SNAP funds?

if you're really on SNAP, my suggestion would be to learn to make more frugal purchases.

leftovers makes a great stone soup

here's what we had in our kitchen today

• 1 leftover ribeye bone
• 1 cob of corn
• 1 onion
• some baby carrots
• some kimchi that I made about 5 months ago
• 3 cloves of garlic
• small piece of ginger
• couple of green onion

none of this was enough for a dish by itself, but we combined them all together and made a great stone soup.  although with the bone and the kimchi, it's more like a galbi tang.  add some rice or in our case today, couscous, and it's a very satisfying meal.  in any case, a great meal that falls well within food stamp budget.

a key problem with society today

the LA Times published an article today "New redemption law puts squeeze on bottle and can recyclers" that illustrates a key problem with society today.

the point of the article is how changes in the redemption value of recyclables are affecting those who depend such for an income.  just to be clear, I have tremendous respect for the people who do what it takes to make a living, even (or especially) those go through other people's trash to make a living. 

first 4 sentences of the article:

Francisco Morataya drives a vanload of empty bottles and cans to Victar Recycling Center in Echo Park every week or so to supplement his wages as an office janitor. The 61-year-old Eagle Rock resident had been making $200 per load, enough to pay his daughter's cellphone bill. But that was before a new state law tightened the redemption rules, making it harder for people at the economic fringes to scrape by. Now his take is only $50 to $60, Morataya said. "It's really bad," he said this week, flinging plastic bottles into a garbage bin. "I can't help my daughter."

in this case, the daughter's phone bill should not be $200/mo.  and the father should not be feeling bad that he cannot help her out with the bill.  he should be feeling bad that he did not instill into his daughter values of frugality (i.e. the bill should not be $200/mo) and responsibility (pay your own way).  

finally, it is incredulous to me that the mainstream media has reached a point where people are expected to feel bad for a population that continuously overspends irresponsibly, yet expect other people to foot the bill for such irresponsibility.  

these days, a lot of articles attempt to use some sob story to demonstrate how some change is causing hardships for a particular family.  most of them fall long these lines-- that the featured families have been living irresponsibly, and now they can no longer do so.  my question is, why are there not more stories highlighting such irresponsibility?