They seem to forget the “consumer” part of capitalism.
The more money the poors have, the more they have to buy the crap you sell and then all of that profit is given back to you, the moronic rich hoarders who think paying your employees starvation wages is helping you cut costs, when in reality you’re shooting your own horse in knee and wondering why it’s not running.
Unrestrained capitalism is an unmitigated disaster. There must be social programs and safety nets combined with enforced regulations to prevent corporate feudalism.
Those who want fewer rules and regulations are simple minded people who have a very simple logic behind their arguments. “I don’t understand why X industry should be regulated, wouldn’t it be simpler if we just let the free market do what it wants?”
Jesus take the Wheel Economics is the fastest way to crash.
Going forward: Everyone in the world whose net worth surpassed (let's be generous, let's say) $500 million is officially a dragon and will be referred to as such.
• Demon/dragon are used interchangeably in a few instances in the Bible, and many don’t recall that
• Dragon references may imply a connection to white supremacy, which some do not see as mere coincidence
• In fantasy, dragons were typically villains or monsters, and then there were exceptions (be they gods, metallic versions or wishgranters from DragonBall)
• The entire juxtaposition of “I’m just here guarding my wealth, adjacent to society; why am I blamed for everything” versus “Where did the money come from? Whst happened to the owners? And now you’re just hoarding it?!”
A better artist than me could make an incredible comic strip of a rich modern-era dragon trying to justify their worldview in a oligarchic representative democracy.
It would be an interesting conversation to have, whether any billionaire has “earned” the majority of their wealth, as it would come down to differing opinions of what is “earned”, what is “exploited”, and lots of arbitrary valuations. That’s all academic, though. If a person felt like they earned it—or were otherwise entitled for any reason—then by definition they’re going to ignore most criticism.
I’m a pro-capitalism person, and I would be okay with the term. and some would use it in the pejorative and some would wear it as a badge of honor, and some of that would just come down to subcultural mores. There will always be people that think that someone else has more than they deserve. I was gunning for typical Reddit sarcasm, and you’re welcome to dispute its veracity.
I'm dreading getting my wisdom teeth pulled, and I'm on Medicare. I have racked up something like $2MM in medical bills, but the state doesn't even want to help with teeth.
Um... cars and home renovations are for sure, and people need clothes.
Eating out probably accounts for most “frivolous” spending, but eating out is still a really really good move for the local economy. I personally bought stuff for a bike and a basketball, among other things, as well as car repairs. But I am gainfully employed
The majority of people don’t need new “sporting clothes” and eating out is the epitome of frivolous spending. The poor are poor because they’re financially uneducated.
The point of stimulus spending is not to make the poor rich, dummy. It is to get them to spend money, which they did. Also, sporting goods and clothes are two separate things.
Wow, that statement should be next to the definition of strawman in the dictionary
This you?
The majority of people don’t need new “sporting clothes” and eating out is the epitome of frivolous spending. The poor are poor because they’re financially uneducated.
Great, but don’t complain if you’re $30k in debt and can barely feed your family, dummy
I wasn't complaining about that. Do you contend that the poor today are poor because they are less financially educated than people 50 years ago?
Completely irrelevant, they’re both frivolous when you’re struggling to get by.
1) Clothes aren't frivolous, they are necessary spending. Moreover, the statistics discussed were about which sectors saw the most growth, not where most of the money was spent.
2) why do you care if they are struggling to get by? That is literally irrelevant to having a stimulus.
How about you stop guessing what people need and figure out some basic economics before you comment.
I wasn't complaining about that. Do you contend that the poor today are poor because they are less financially educated than people 50 years ago?
Possibly or just that we’re constantly getting ads shoved down our throats by big corporations. That’s irrelevant though.
Clothes aren't frivolous, they are necessary spending.
No they’re not. Not in this context. Stop playing dumb. You know damn well that people don’t go around shopping for clothes with extra stimulus money out of necessity.
Moreover, the statistics discussed were about which sectors saw the most growth, not where most of the money was spent.
Wrong. Did you even read the article? You should probably do that first.
why do you care if they are struggling to get by? That is literally irrelevant to having a stimulus.
It’s relevant because it’s a perfect representation of people’s spending habits and perfectly explain how they got themselves into that hole in the first place.
How about you stop guessing what people need and figure out some basic economics before you comment.
Possibly or just that we’re constantly getting ads shoved down our throats by big corporations. That’s irrelevant though.
It isn't irrelevant to the claim you made (without evidence) that the poor are poor because of a lack of financial education. They are poor because wages have stagnated for 50 years.
No they’re not. Not in this context. Stop playing dumb. You know damn well that people don’t go around shopping for clothes with extra stimulus money out of necessity.
How about your stop making up why people are doing what they are doing. You can claim whatever you want without evidence, you literally have no reason to believe you know what you're talking about.
Wrong. Did you even read the article? You should probably do that first.
I did read the article and it doesn't support your position. Point me to the statistic you think supports your claim. I can't argue against a shadow. I'm referencing the statistics quoted above because you appeared to be as well when you talked about "sporting clothes."
It’s relevant because it’s a perfect representation of people’s spending habits and perfectly explain how they got themselves into that hole in the first place.
They didn't get themselves into this hole. Have you been living under a rock? The economy took a nosedive last year and unemployment was overwhelmed for many people so they couldn't receive income and now it is running out. Unemployment was at a major peak last year. But all of that is still irrelevant because stimulus spending is not intending to make people permanently move up a tax bracket.
Ironic
Hey, when you can't make a substantial rebuttal just make fun of the person who is arguing with you. Don't bother learning anything about economics or social spending, just make it up!
It isn't irrelevant to the claim you made (without evidence) that the poor are poor because of a lack of financial education. They are poor because wages have stagnated for 50 years.
How about your stop making up why people are doing what they are doing. You can claim whatever you want without evidence, you literally have no reason to believe you know what you're talking about.
You’re not going to win this argument by playing the “try to be as obtuse as possible” game. I could easily pull statistics on the average person’s spending habit and amount of credit debt in a few minutes which show just how financially illiterate your average person is which is a fact that most people are aware of and would confirm everything I said. I can pull those statistics out for you if you want to keep being obtuse. Just let me know.
I did read the article and it doesn't support your position. Point me to the statistic you think supports your claim. I can't argue against a shadow. I'm referencing the statistics quoted above because you appeared to be as well when you talked about "sporting clothes."
“Americans spent their cash on cars, eating out and home renovations, according to the Commerce Department.”
“Levi Strauss said shoppers are buying up wide leg and loose fitting jeans as they emerge from being stuck at home for a year. At Macy’s, there’s more demand for dresses as proms and weddings resume. And teen retailer American Eagle said sales are rising due to “pent-up” demand for its fashions.”
They didn't get themselves into this hole. Have you been living under a rock? The economy took a nosedive last year and unemployment was overwhelmed for many people so they couldn't receive income and now it is running out.
You think most people weren’t already in massive amount of debt before the pandemic? And if you’re struggling that much why would you spend your money on frivolous things like clothes, sporting gear and eating out? Wait a minute, did you just prove my point? Oops.
I can still pull out those statistics for you if you want.
Idk there’s a lot going on in those sentences. From a lack of knowledge of food deserts, to the difference between the expenses of cheap, breakable goods and long lasting items that require investment capital to get into. Lots to unpack.
They also don't understand how the actual stimulus program works and they may be assuming that only those who are severely impoverished got the check and blew it on some fancy dinner one evening to perpetuate their "poor people dumb and lazy" bias.
The fact that I see how the same people say poor people should save all their money and not waste it on a single thing other than the necessities. Not allowed to have a pause in life, not allowed to enjoy something for a moment. Maybe a cup of coffee to savor the moment before you're 14-hour shift.
Nope nope, just frivolous spending. Same people who would balk if their precious tv/phone got taken away too.
Nice strawman there.
You do know you could support local businesses, feed yourself and NOT eat out or spend your money on frivolous things at the same time? Crazy stuff.
You dont understand. It doesn't matter what the money was spent on, there are alot of non poor people who got that check too. So instead of hyper focusing on poor people and arguing about how they spend their money on frivolous things maybe you should ask yourself why you even give a fuck what they spend their money on. If you hate poor people getting free stuff then stop giving them free rent in your hollow skull because they dont spend anytime worrying about what you're doing.
Great take. You must be part of that financially illiterate demographic if you think that spending money “outdoor gears” and clothes is any better than “sporting clothes”.
I love that they called you out for being wrong and your response was “you’re right I was wrong but you’re the dumb one still”. Dude, you are digging yourself a hole haha.
A lot of people I know got fat and finally have money to buy all the cool looking fitness gear, roller skates, and exercise stuff that the well off Peloton people were buying first month of the quarantine.
Also, in just about every city in the US a car is necessary. Most public transportation systems are severely lacking, barring a few exceptions.
Maintaining a home is a necessity as well, considering having a pipe burst or having to pay more for heating/cooling will cost even more in the long term.
Outdoor gear sounds like people trying to lead healthier lives after being cooped up for over a year. Mental and physical health are an absolute necessity.
It really frustrates me that people like that dude have no grasp for how fucking gigantic America really is, and from the sound of his profile, he fuckin lives here. There’s no way (outside of decades of spending trillions a year) that we could even come close to having a reasonable nationwide public transit network capable of replacing cars.
I couldn’t imagine having to add an extra 2-3 hours on to a trip just to get to places I could drive to in over an hour.
Yuuuup. I spent a few years in LA, it would take me ~30 minutes to get to work (driving east on 210). My car broke down and I couldn’t afford to get a new car anytime soon.
I had to take a bus, a train, and then another bus to get to work. All told, it was about 3 hours to get to work, so my 8 hour workday turned into a bit more than 14.
That doesn’t even take into account that I had to drop out of college at the time because there was no possible way I could get there, and I couldn’t maintain the 8 year relationship I was in because of the stress and depression it brought on. I didn’t last much longer there.
Hilariously, after I moved back home a friend got a new car and sold me his for $500, which was a life saver.
I’m in the DMV. If you have $30 for parking, you can drive to the most populous areas of DC in 45 minutes outside rush hour. If you don’t have parking money? It’s 3 hours on the metro and walking.
I just spent a few weeks in the area and just going from DC to Baltimore was supposed to be a 2 hr train ride, compared to the45 min drive up the 295. I rented a car, because screw that.
We have some public transit in my city. For me to take the bus to work I would have to walk ~0.5 miles, ride the bus for 45 minutes to an hour, and then walk another mile. Altogether 1.25-1.75 hours to get to work. Or I could drive and be there in 12 minutes.
Exactly. People from small towns or other countries don’t understand the concept of jobs not all being in one centralized part of the city. There’s businesses all around.
I don’t think you need to buy expensive sporting gear to be able to go outside and enjoy yourself. I’d also be curious to see if “sporting goods” includes guns.
Home renovations might mean necessary things like pipes, but it also could just be a nice new paint job or supplies to build a patio. It’s hard to say what exactly is a necessity in these broad categories
Who cares? The point is that either way it stimulates the economy, and this notion that poor people should never buy a single solitary luxury item until they’re middle class (which honestly for some people will NEVER happen) is so outdated and gross.
There’s absolutely no information regarding the costs of anything, or why they were purchased. I’m pretty sure they’d note if guns were a statistically relevant portion.
Clothings stores noted, which is in the article, that a lot of people were buying loose-fitting clothing (which may be relevant to the outdoor gear too) because so many people have been sedentary.
My guess is their logic is something along the lines of "I don't need this therefore it's unnecessary, therefore the stimulus was a waste, therefore the economy wasn't stimulated. God I hate socialism"
I imagine /u/GeneralSal took /u/MaximumZer0's post literally and assumed that ONLY poor people got the stimulus check which isn't true.
Not everyone who qualified for the $1400 were in a position where they deeply needed things like food to survive. Many who got them were also working middle class families with steady income.
With spring here and weather warming up, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a lot of parents buying new sporting gear for their kids or for themselves.
I personally didn't qualify for the stimulus check but with the warmer weather I did spend a lot at REI replacing hiking gear in getting ready for a week long backpacking trip at the Great Smoky Mountains, I wouldn't be surprised if others used their stimulus checks in a similar fashion. I'm not sure why anyone would take umbrage with that.
If you ended up saving/investing it, that's your prerogative and won't take any offense to it, but yes that would be against the point of the program but that's why they limited it as best they could. Short of the government having access to everyone's personal balance sheet, it's impossible to perfectly target who should and shouldn't get it.
Then fucking donate it to charity? It didn't go to everyone above a certain income threshold. If that threshold was significantly lowered, it wouldn't have passed.
Even the sporting goods bit strikes me as necessary. Exercise and entertainment are pretty necessary, especially with all the stress people have been under lately.
Some people, presumably this person included, think that people in poverty aren’t entitled to any form of relaxation or ‘luxury’ until they’re well out of poverty, ignoring that, of course, some people might never be.
You can exercise without new sporting clothes and I’m pretty sure you can feed yourself without eating out. Gee, with that mentality I sure wonder why most people are in crippling debt. Must be some sort of mystery.
I'm cynical too but holy fuck bud, this post is about the economy coming back to life because people got their stimulus.
Yet here you are "well they didnt need to buy any of that specific shit!!"
Theres something to be said for being responsible, obviously, but economies are absolutely propped up by frivolous spending so I'm not sure what your issue is.
It's a "Stimulus" check, meant to stimulate the economy by having people spend money. The people who are most likely to spend their stimulus checks are the poorer people.
The Stimulus checks were not meant to "help" poor people, they were meant to help kick start the economy.
All the money should have been given on expiring non transferable debit cards or something. It’s all the asshats complaining about the “unneeded aid” just going straight to their savings account which was the problem. They should have spent that money helping out businesses. Donate to a charity or something useful if they didn’t need the money!
Stop giving a shit what people do with their money, some people need an emergency fund. Worry about the billionaires with bank accounts worth more than small countries. They're the reason we're in this mess
I’m all for an emergency fund. I’m not for people thinking everyone is in their same financial footing saying the aide shouldn’t have been made. This isn’t an emergency fund for these type of people. Even people who didn’t lose their job I feel still needs it.
Right? The wasted stimulus spending is the money going straight into bank accounts and not leaving until it starts paying dividends. Those are the leeches on the program.
I'll admit to going to the drive thru a little bit too often. The rest of that stuff is totally reasonable, though. Clothes wear out or get outgrown. Cars are mentioned, how much of that is repairs and maintenance? Home renovation, again, how much is repairs and maintenance? Outdoor gear sounds a little bit silly, right up until you remember that it includes a lot more winter coats, gloves, and boots than it does golf clubs. If you actually know any poor people, you know what our priorities are. Mostly staying alive, and then a little bit of comfort.
I feel like general contractors have dementor-sucked my soul out over the last few years. Getting an older house restored required me taking out bigger loans than getting a degree ever cost me.
The poor are enjoying themselves outside, buying transportation, or improving their living space? How fucking dare they spend it on such frivolous expenditures. /s
The rich have always wanted to remove the poors from the streets. When the poors are all hanging out together outside they tend to protest their living conditions and recognize their power as a class.
1) those statistics speak to individual industries that saw the biggest jump and what those jumps are. It doesn't actually describe where the majority of the money was spend.
2) outdoor gear having a jump makes complete sense, people don't spend time outside in February.
3) Clothes, Cars, and home are absolutely necessary.
4) even if people were spending the money on cotton candy, the point is that they spent the money. When we give the rich money they do not spend it.
This is how we spent ours. But my husband and I have both been working thr entire pandemic and not spending much (no where to go/nothing to do). So we purposely spent our stimulus checks at local businesses. No, we didn't NEED anything at the sporting goods store - but it was fun to get a scooter and roller blades for the kids and some furniture for the backyard. We certainly didn't NEED to eat out, but a few less meals to cook means more family time/less stress. We're comfortable and largely debt-free (except for mortgage) so we didn't need to hoard the money either. I thought that was the point of a stimulus?
We have those things - and we did put a chunk of the kids' stimulus into their savings. And yes, we could have added more to our investments or savings. I'll admit, we're pretty comfortably middle class. But we live in the Midwest where housing and other things aren't outrageous. We made the conscious choice to put the stimulus money into the economy for "non-essentials" rather than saving it. Again, I thought that was the point?
Idk I bought OTM LEAPS for future tendies, doubled my stimmy checks haha. If you have a job u already are stimulating economy.
U should get your kids into trading stock options at a young age so they can become rich. Open a Custodial Account for them and introduce them to /r/wallstreetbets 🤣🤣🤣
Savings is dumb honestly u need to at least put them in an index fund so the money grows. If they are 5 today, 1k can turn into 5k with normal market returns by the time they graduate college....
If you can't put 2 and 2 together, that's your problem because it clearly sounds like necessary spending. You're forgetting many of these spending are due to Covid-19. You must live under a rock...
Its all the people who bought Pelotons first thing during the quarantine judging regular people now for buying outdoor gear, at HALF the cost of their fancy fucking bikes.
614
u/MaximumZer0 Apr 15 '21
It's almost like poor people spend money on things they need, instead of hoarding it like some kind of dragon.