Walmart's CEO talked about this a few years ago—how crowded their stores get around midnight on the last day of the month, because that's when people's payments clear:
about 11 p.m., customers start to come in and shop, fill their grocery basket with basic items, baby formula, milk, bread, eggs, and continue to shop and mill about the store until midnight, when electronic — government electronic benefits cards get activated and then the checkout starts and occurs. And our sales for those first few hours on the first of the month are substantially and significantly higher. And if you really think about it, the only reason somebody gets out in the middle of the night and buys baby formula is that they need it, and they’ve been waiting for it. Otherwise, we are open 24 hours — come at 5 a.m., come at 7 a.m., come at 10 a.m. But if you are there at midnight, you are there for a reason.
I worked at WalMart for 3 years. I worked overnight doing inventory management and I saw exactly what the CEO described. One thing I noticed that he didn't mention is that a large number of the people I worked with were part of that group of people waiting at midnight to buy their baby formula. I always felt like the wages at our store were subsidized by the government.
All of the people I talking about worked full time. They all had ungodly sums come out of their paycheque every two weeks to pay for health insurance (from what I understand it was not a great plan either). I don't really know what kind of point I'm trying to make here. On one hand it's nice that there are a lot of cheap options at WalMart for people on small budgets. On the other hand, it's sad that so many WalMart employees (in my own experience) are the ones who so badly needing to take advantage of those prices.
That is why I like Costco better: the people who work there don't seem as downtrodden. Either I've been fooled by corporate propaganda or they really have figured out a way to make money, lower prices, and treat people relatively well. Walmarts feel like places of despair to me and Costcos like places of hope. I know how ludicrous that sounds, but the feeling is real. I often chat with workers at checkout counters to gut-test my theory, and it seems to hold up, though it could all just be confirmation bias.
Edit: there's one big difference, though. To shop at Costco you have to buy twice as much (plus typically pay membership fees). That step could be too steep for the people most living hand-to-mouth, even though it would save them money within weeks. So there could be sample bias here too.
> there's one big difference, though. To shop at Costco you have to buy twice as much (plus typically pay membership fees). That step could be too steep for the people most living hand-to-mouth, even though it would save them money within weeks. So there could be sample bias here too.
See the article Why Can’t Walmart Be More Like Costco?[0] for more on this.
You can often sift through McArdle's post to find the Yglesias or Salmon post she's citing and just read that instead. Here, the analysis seems to boil down to "sure, Walmart could pay every worker $3000/yr more and have Costco's margins, but who cares about a paltry $3000?".
The rest of her argument appears to be "I don't know if that would work for Walmart". Neither do I, but "I don't know" isn't a persuasive argument. :)
Did you even read her article? She gives a very clear reason.
Walmart sells 140k skus, sorted on shelves and available in small quantities, and has lots of cashiers so you can get in and out reasonably quickly. Costco sells 4k skus, mostly in bulk, and forces you to wait 20 minutes to leave the store.
You know what? You're absolutely right. I went down a little wormhole of McArdle-vs-Other-People link following, watched 12(!) minutes of her and Dean Baker going at it on video about whether the fed can reasonably call asset bubbles, and lost my place; I had a different McArdle post in my other window when I wrote this.
The irony is, I was particularly poorly served by the advice I offered here, since skipping straight to Yglesias totally screwed me up.
That's clearly one of the reasons she gives, but I wouldn't call it a clear reason. It doesn't make the point she cares about, as she herself says. Her claim (approximately) is "Costco's way may work for Costco but it wouldn't work here, because numbers and business". But people used to argue the same about how it would never work for Costco either.
It's hard for people to make the comparisons between brands, sizes, so on and so forth. Australia recently passed legislation requiring supermarkets to list the price-per-unit-weight/volume alongside the product price. So on a food item, you'll see the price for the product, and also the price per 100 grams.
It means things are directly comparable across brands and sizes ("how does this 117g portion compare to this 270g one?"). It's a fantastic bit of legislation.
Britain also has this kind of legislation. But e.g. Tesco often tries to play around it, by listing, say, different kinds of apples sometimes by piece, sometimes by kg.
I'm not sure it's a law though (I doubt it, at least it's not federal, as it's not in all stores). I imagine it could just as easily have been market pressure, as the supermarkets began to offer their own brands of products for cheaper than premium, it made sense to offer direct comparisons with as much information as possible.
Thanks for that link. I read it and tried for an embarrassingly long time to write a coherent reply, but apparently can't do it. Megan Mcardle's blend of ideology and snark is like reverse catnip to me. If I were a cat, or something. Fortunately it's still gorgeously sunny here; I'm gonna go outside and atone for my foolishness by being happy.
I had no idea that the question Why can't Walmart treat its workers better, since Costco has proved it possible was not only a thing, but mature enough in the lifecycle of thingness for Mcardle to write an entire piece about how much it annoys her. I just arrived at it from observation in the stores. Well, that plus an article or two about Costco.
I had an evening a month ago where I had to return similar items to both WalMart and Costco. Each one should have been really quick, but Costco was very slow (about 30 minutes), With a rather rude cashier. Walmart took just 2 minutes and they were perfectly polite and helpful.
Strange that Walmart customer support was 100x better.
No doubt variance swamps our puny personal experiences, but for the little that it's worth I've had the opposite: instant return at Costco no questions asked, and a half hour lineup to return a wrong product I'd just mistakenly bought at Walmart. To be fair to Walmart, though, it wasn't their cashiers' fault. There were only two customers in front of me and both were so obstreperously difficult that it became an amusement to watch what ridiculous thing would happen next. One was returning a shopping cart full of dozens of items of clothing. The other was returning a single can of soup. Soup guy was the harder of the two.
I've also noticed, at my local Costcos (there's something like 5 within 30 minutes from my house), that there is a pretty large cadre of very long-term employees there. There's a few employees I recognize going on 10 years of employment there.
It would be nice if CostCo allowed people of low income to apply for a financial aid in the form of free membership if their income was low enough. It's unfortunate that only the people with greater purchasing power get access to the lowest cost per item unit.
The membership is the per member profit. Costco doesn't mark up items more than 14%. In some states they aren't allowed to require membership to access the pharmacy. If what you proposed was workable, I'd expect groups of people in an area to band together or have a middleman in order to only have one membership and break up bulk items.
(And technically there is such a middleman doing their best to lower prices - they are called Walmart.)
> ... greater purchasing power get access to the lowest cost ...
Same thing happens with the US health system - the uninsured pay the most for exactly the same procedures at the same place. At least in the case of Costco it is economically sensible because buyers purchase a bigger volume and the store has greater throughput. (Costco typically has 4,000 SKUs per store while a normal supermarket will be around 16,000.)
CostCo's profit is the memberships. It is a smart business model that is very successful. It just isn't designed for people who are living hand-to-mouth. Nothing wrong with that, its just how it is.
I don't think it's just walmart employees that need those prices, it's anyone working that type of job. Most employees at small businesses doing the same work earn the same or less than a walmart employee.
I'd go out since my mother had to get up at 5:00. That card allowed us to scrape by during some very rough times. I hate to think where we'd have ended up without it.
I'm glad to see a little sympathetic light being shown on this. It always irritates me a bit to hear these programs and the people they help derided politically.
Today, I pay far more in taxes each month than my entire family consumed in such benefits each year growing up.
I was hoping to see some data on how limited funds forced people to buy inefficiently...that is, buying cheaper quantities that are per-item more expensive than bulk buying because they can't afford the up front cost of buying bulk. My roommate will do this when buying dish soap for the household, always getting the smallest bottle than just paying for the large one at a 30% discount per ounce.
Also, some cheap items are disproportionately bad for one's health...if I were poor, it'd be hard to justify buying two apples over a Big Mac, given the calorie per dollar ratios.
When you don't have enough to cover all your bills and keep appliances up, your spending patterns change dramatically as well. If you don't have a functioning fridge, you're only buying a tiny (extremely overpriced) package of meat. If you don't have gas for your oven, you're only going to be making things in the microwave.
There're also some perverse incentives around happiness calculations too. When I was in college, I had a netfriend who lived in a poor rust-belt town, and her family never had enough to eat. One time she was talking about her brand new DVD player and home entertainment system, a couple days after talking about how there was no food in the house. I asked her why she'd just bought a brand new DVD player (something that, to my middle-class college existence, was an incredible luxury) when she was going hungry.
She replied that if she'd spent that money on food, she'd eat well this month but would just go hungry again next month. This way, she'd go hungry all the time, but at least she could lose herself in a movie and forget about it. There's a peculiar kind of logic to that which I can't really argue with, despite the common Internet refrain about how poor people are poor because of their own stupidity.
We came across something similar to this when we were researching credit unions and pay-day lending. One of the reasons that people on benefits here can't access cheaper fuel bills is that they have difficulty planning their finances on a monthly basis when given a fortnightly lump of money. I can't remember the exact figures - I think it worked out as something like £5 a month they were losing. Which when you multiply it up for thousands of people or significant stretches of time is fairly significant - more or less what some people are getting into debt over, multiplied by a year, for people borrowing money to cover Christmas for instance.
Rice can be incredibly unhealthy for you as well...my girlfriend talks about the "Peace Corps 15", where your host family stuffs you full of incredibly starchy carbohydrates (because that's often all that's available in 3rd world countries) and you end up gaining a large amount of weight and ending up with nutritional deficits anyway because of it.
6 apples: 600 kcal. A full day's worth of fiber, vitamin C, and sugar. But not much else. No protein or fat to speak of.
Big Mac: 600 kcal. Half a day's worth of fat, protein, and sodium. 12% RDA of fiber, 30% of calcium, 25% iron.
If you could only eat one or the other, you'd probably be better off with the Big Mac. If you wanted to turn these two poor choices into a full day of three meals, you should probably eat two Big Macs and 6 apples (plus lots of water, and hopefully a vitamin supplement).
Poor people don't buy Big Macs, they load up on dollar menu double cheeseburgers / McDoubles to maximize calories+nutrition per dollar. And the burgers are a better nutritional bet if you're poor.
Erm...what? I don't understand. Calorie-per-dollar ratio = p/q for p calories and q dollars. What model are you using where p or q but not both is negative for the apples example but not the BigMac one?
The thing is, the digestion calories are one small portion of the dietary effects of any food.
For example, some increase thermogenesis, so you could account for that
Yes, apart from cold water it seems hard to think any food can provide no calories. Evolution took care of our digestive tract extracting the most of food (unless you're eating paper)
I'm certain that apples do not fall into the negative calorie category of celery, cress, etc. but it's still a possible answer to the "what model" question, so thanks. I guess that's what "Filligree" was going for...
I consider myself to have some pretty useful development skills. I keep up to date with things like HTML5, CoffeeScript, AngularJS, AWS, Node.JS etc. However, I don't know what my problem is, if its lack of social or business skills or no degree or what, but I have been living hand-to-mouth doing freelance software development for years.
A lot of my projects have been from outsourcing sites. But some of them have been from small companies that weren't trying to outsource, just didn't have the biggest budgets. There seem to be quite a lot of software projects that have fairly restricted budgets, and unfortunately those are the ones I know how to get. Sometimes things are good for a few months and I don't have to worry, but oftentimes I need to complete some aspect of a project and get a PayPal from the client right away or I won't be able to pay bills.
Maybe I am the exception, but I doubt I am really alone in this, and thought I should admit it in case anyone else is struggling.
Stop using outsourcing sites to source clients. Your new rate is $100 per hour, until I can convince you to switch to weekly rates in any case. Go out there and beat the bushes to find businesses which have problems which you can address in AWS/NodeJS/etc which are worth paying your new rate.
After your income spikes, start saving some of it so that you can tolerate lean periods between clients. This will let you stop working for less-desirable clients and try experiments like bumping your rate without having to worry about what this will do to a count-on-one-hand number of clients in the pipeline.
When you say "go out there and beat the bushes" what exactly do you mean? I have tried networking a little bit at one or too networking events but few people seemed interested in my help.
Networking events are generally not the best place to meet people with business problems -- they tend to attract a bit more of an aspirational audience. Business owners with budget congregate in predictable places: conferences for their industry, their own offices, locally organized meetups, the Chamber of Commerce, etc etc. If you absolutely can't find an appropriate event, throw one yourself. I'm totally serious. Throw a seminar on How to (Put Any Business Goal Here) With (Pick A Technology They Have Heard About Recently) For (Pick An Industry). Rent out a room for a few hours at the local civic center or whatever you have in your neck of the woods. Buy coffee/donuts for everyone. Teach folks for an hour. Give a five minute sales pitch at the end. Let folks mingle for a while so they can enjoy your coffee and donuts. Many people will come up and introduce themselves to you.
(This can be done on approximately a $100 budget in Ogaki, so that's probably the upper bound for you. If you can't afford that, write up how this advice actually worked out for you in a blog post and I'll reimburse you.)
Invite people via pre-existing networks like e.g. the Chamber of Commerce, which is generally happy to tell their members about free events which aren't (explicit) sales pitches.
When meeting people, ask about their business problems. Listen. Tell them that you understand those problems. If appropriate, say that you think you can produce a solution to those problems, since you are in the business of doing that as a technology consultant, and offer to discuss that problem in more detail after the event.
That right there:
"One thing that programmers forget is that, at some point, you weren't good at programming, but over time, you learned and now you are pretty good."
That's just an enormous revelation. I can't even tell you how good it was to talk to Dave Rodenbaugh and he basically said: "See, you are now good in giving talks. Do you remember the first time?" and I was like: "Yeah, I remember: I nearly cried afterwards"
Patrick's (patio11's) advice is really the advice you should be following. However, I can easily imagine how daunting those steps must sound. (Rent a room? Stage an event? Get up and talk? Woah.) I hate to think of that paralyzing you from trying something different. So, an alternative (though not necessarily better) option I suggest is, at the networking events you attend, look for someone to learn from.
Look for someone that impresses you - both technically and professionally. Someone that, if you could succeed in patterning yourself after, you'd consider yourself fulfilled and successful. Grab their ear, pick their brains, ask them for advice. Show them your interest, enthusiasm, and aptitude - and earn their respect. Hopefully, they'll help you get to where you want to be.
If you don't do _anything_ else, fill out your HN profile with some contact information. Right now, you're making it difficult/impossible for potential clients/employers to contact (the Hacker News) you. Why?
Thank you for your advice. +1. I put my personal contact information in my profile for the entirety of the internet to see. I wonder who the heck is going to call me? Well, there it is.
You're welcome! I love HN Notify. It's funny but I saw it off of someone else's profile too! Email notification for HN is definitely awesome. I wish someone made one to give +1 upvote notification too.
The big shot web devs in HN and in blogging forums are the exception -- and, through survivorship bias et al, they make it sound like it was just their "hard work and persistence" that got them there.
Not to mention that managing a business (freelancing) is a totally different skill set than web development. Of the developers out there who are decent at web development, many are hopeless at running a business.
The basics of running business can be learned. And as programming skills are currently really sought after compared to almost any other skills, the only business skills you need to learn is basic sales skills and asking for more money.
The only strategy you need to understand is "follow the money". Always try to understand how critical the project is to customer's core money making activities. If the project is an experimental iPhone app for promotional purposes, the budget is likely to be constrained.
For some odd reason, asking for more money seem to be really hard for many developers. We seem to have some internal mental critic saying that "You are not worth it". You can read stories from HN of people who have to get drunk to be able to send a bill to the customer. I remember how I kept postponing sending my first 100€/h bill to customer because I had these looming thoughts that it was somehow unfair. Despite that the customer was a huge organization making millions a month, and my work had helped them enormously.
Agree with dools - try charging more. I increased my revenues by 25% simply by asking. Once this contract is over, I'll increase my rates again. One important note - I have a proven record of someone who delivers. I suggest you invest in making sure your next customer understands it.
It doesn't take much - do a nice write up about yourself on LinkedIn and ask previous customers to write endorsements.
For many people, increasing rates also increases that ability to deliver.
A hand to mouth developer has to prioritize by which project will pay an invoice the fastest rather than the highest paying project (I need to get paid today, I can't afford to wait for big corp to pay me net 30.) That means plans may change on a day to day basis and low priority projects get delayed.
The hand to mouth developer may unexpectedly fall off the radar because he got his internet shut off and can't pay the bill.
The hand to mouth developer takes on too much work and ends up delaying everything because he doesn't have enough time to knock everything out. If he hits burnout from this, then he may fall off the radar indefinitely.
You MUST set your rates at least to a point where you can save money. You MUST have at least a 3 month cushion (the more the merrier.)
For those looking to hire freelance developers, a low rate should be a red flag. You don't want to risk your business on someone who is being affected by these issues.
I was going to write a lot of what patio11 already did - it's much the same advice I give to people in similar situations - I'll try to add a bit more.
It's 0 to do with your lack of degree. I have a degree in philosophy from 20 years ago - that plays 0 role in determining projects. Word of mouth and referrals are a primary key to projects coming in. How do you get those?
Networking events help some, but it's a slower process and more of a 'long term' effort to be keeping up. Finding events focused on a particular industry you want to serve (education, finance, writers, construction, food service, etc) will give you a bigger bang for your time investment. You may not have a portfolio specifically focused on 'industry x', but it doesn't matter - showing up at some of their events - and talking to people - will connect you with some players.
Asking people for referrals will generally help too, although doing this with clients from outsourcing sites won't - they've already demonstrated how they want to search for labor. If they like you, they won't want to loan their 'secret weapon' out to friends/colleagues - if they don't, they would't want to ruin their reputation by referring you to someone else. This is somewhat perverse, but it's logic I've heard from more than a few people who've found 'good' developers via sites like odesk. This only applies to people who are continually using your services on a regular basis though.
Following up on patio11 - run your own functions, and/or start your own meetup/networking group. Being the person who runs a regional meetup group will make you the gatekeeper for people who want to contact your group members, generally when they have job/project offers. This won't necessarily be a flood of business on day - again, this a bit more of a long-term strategy - but it can have some moderately quick pay off in some areas.
But... you will need those social skills - I've no idea if yours are good or bad, but just by doing some of these things and putting yourself out there, you'll be demonstrating at least a willingness to learn or improve those skills.
Find local/regional development shops - marketing agencies doing web work, for example - and ask if they have any overflow work. This isn't necessarily going to get you $100/hour work off the bat, but will connect you with more people in your area. That said, for newer projects, they may just price you in to their proposals, and as it's not the agency's money, they won't care too much what your price is - it's just one component of the project.
Also, re: AWS, Node, CoffeeScript - etc - the types of projects you're going to find on outsourcing sites aren't typically going to be relying on those. Business owners care far more about just getting something done than what tech it's using, but those that want specific tech by name probably aren't clamoring for coffeescript or typescript at this point - they'll be asking for drupal or wordpress or magenta by name.
I'm at mgkimsal@gmail.com and would be interested in helping out more if I can - feel free to email me and we can discuss things in private more directly if you'd like.
I'd also throw out that I think you might need to consider travel - no idea if you do that or not, but I've had some projects I couldn't give to people because they weren't available to come on site a few times during the project (as in, drive 5-6 hours and stay overnight).
FWIW, I don't think you're alone - I think there's a number of people in your situation.
There really isn't much to this article. From the title, I thought it was going to discuss the problems that people face when they live paycheck-to-paycheck and/or near the poverty line, which is a story that's been told but bears repeating and further exploration.
Instead, it merely remarks that some US corporations have noticed an upward trend in the number of their customers who are a part of this very predictable cycle (pay/benefits days, usually at the end of the month), and mentions that more "middle-class" are now a part of the cycle.
However, it doesn't delve much deeper than linking it to the recession, and doesn't offer any insights into how these businesses are adapting other than vague references to "big data" (with a hat-trick of references to the term).
Yeah, I was hoping for practical quantification of the minimum viable cost of living. Fascinated with $1 meals, I get a lot of flack over "cost of living" which usually includes a lot which I consider relative luxuries. Take those waiting for the midnight EBT recharge and see what they really buy, and see whether their choices are more a matter of need, desire, education, awareness, and/or availability. Methinks the real issues are buried under the heated rhetoric.
You'll also find the cops setting up "safety checkpoints" on the day welfare payments go out / checks clear. It happened a lot on the road from the reservation to town. Its not like its easy to keep a car running and maintained in a place where it gets above 90F in the summer and -40F in the winter[1].
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”
Once you've saved up a decent amount, it makes much more sense to go with a very high deductible plan. Sure, you might lose 10k in one year through some disaster, but on average you'll pay much less than that, such that it's cheaper to forgo insurance for everyday health expenses.
If you're poor, though, having to spend 10k out of pocket will throw you into a spiral of debt, bankruptcy, and poverty, on top of the associated health problems. Even 1k out of pocket can ruin you.
Over decades, you can reasonably expect to save tens of thousands of dollars on health insurance with a high deductible instead of a "comprehensive" plan.
It makes sense to go high deductible no matter what your income is. It costs less to pay interest and principle on your $10k disaster deductible than it does to pay $2k/year extra on low deductible health insurance.
This is complicated somewhat by tax law. Your company paying for the more expensive plan is paying it out of pre-tax money, whereas your deductible (up to a point) is paid out of post-tax money (unless it comes out of an FSA, but those being "use it or lose it", one should be careful not to over-fund, so they aren't a good match for paying unexpected deductibles).
That's a great quote, but this all really just boils down to short- versus long-term thinking. When you're poor, your long-term thinking goes out the window in exchange for making it to next week. Getting out of that is hard -- harder than you can imagine until you're in it -- because it's like your long-term thought center just atrophies in survival mode.
Poor people aren't ignorant of the long-term. Note that Vimes himself is poor (he never really becomes a noble, at least); his point is you need boots now, and can't wait a year to save up for a good pair - the boots you get today leave you without enough to ever buy nice boots. Most depressingly, many don't see how they can save at all, making just slightly less than what's needed to make it to next week.
I suppose part of the trick is to realize you're living less than a zero sum life, and then grinding even worse off for a long while to save enough up for a pair of boots that will then save you enough to lift your life up by the bootstraps.
It's not a question of long-term vs. short-term thinking.
It's a question of cash flow.
It's a vicious cycle, too; the lower your cash flow is, the less you can exploit economies of scale, and the less you can save, keeping your cash flow limited. Catastrophic events (such as an unexpected illness) are more likely to create debt, and debt service (interest and repayment of principal) reduces your cash flow further.
While wealth, at some point, becomes self-sustaining.
Perhaps "planning" is a term closer to what I'm attempting to convey. The reality is that even if you think long-term, it requires money to execute those plans.
Very little -- that's the point. When you're in a position like this, you're not thinking long-term because 1) the short-term requires your immediate attention, and 2) even if you come up with long-term plans, it's going to be very difficult to execute them without money.
This is by no means a value judgement -- been there, done that -- and more just a reality of the situation.
Similarly it's expensive to be disorganized. I have hesitated in the past to buy a quality fall/winter jacket because the risk was too high that I would lose it. I cleaned out some boxes recently and found three low-quality sets of Allen wrenches. If I had bought a nice set, I probably would just have been out more money when I lost them anyway.
They don't - they either go barefoot or they'll weave simple sandals out of jute (a very hardy grass). Note - India is mostly tropical, no need for boots (except near the Himalayas).
There are precisely 2 ways to interpret the linguistic meaning of the statement, depending on the whether you insert "decisions" or "options" for "choices".
With what you're thinking of, the actual reaction someone has to the statement, after deciding what is linguistically intended... I've got to believe there are a lot more than 3 possible reactions. One that you haven't mentioned is the tendency to immediate demand a differentiation between "good poor" and "bad poor". This was one of the less brilliant innovations of eighties political culture in the US.
Poor can be "financially deficient" or "miserable" or "downtrodden" too, that gives some scope for alternatives.
"The poor are poor", can simply be a statement about the financial situation of a particular demographic or it can be a statement about the unhappiness of peoples lot, pity really, for those who're confined by their finances.
So:
People [without money|downtrodden] are [without money|downtrodden|to be pitied] because all of their [decisions|options] suck.
Who you think the term poor applies too is another way the phrase can be interpreted. "Trump is poor, he only values money", etc..
I used to think there were only two as well but a third kept popping up. It might not be a strict interpretation per se, but it deserves its own category.
It goes something like "You shouldn't say stuff like that, its prejudice against the poor, don't be so arrogant, hateful, etc." The quote is a call to action: We should help the poor make better choices; we should help the poor have better choices; and the third "we should make it so people don't talk like this". I find the last one the most troubling.
Personally I think both sides should soften their approaches and try to meet in the middle of #1 and #2 for surely its a continuum stretching between the two. The third reaction baffles me.
I guess it would qualify more as a figurative interpretation. Its probably subconsciously choosing #1 or #2 then (no matter the choice) hearing the opposing view in the quote, and then immediately interpreting it as a mean spirited attack on your position. Its an almost reflexive jump to being offended that happens often enough that I've given it its own category.
You can eat quite well on $3/day. $1.50/day of food is comfortably above subsistence in the US.
A diet of strictly rice and beans will net 1500 calories for $.30 - $.50 per day. That's not an appetizing diet, but provides a base number for calibration.
If minimum wage was $22 an hour the price of dinner for two at Applebee's would increase around 80 cents. $22 an hour is what the wage should be in keeping pace with workers increased productivity.
If the minimum wage was in fact a livable wage young adults could support themselves with an entry level job. I believe unemployment is the highest among males 18 - 22 years old.
about 11 p.m., customers start to come in and shop, fill their grocery basket with basic items, baby formula, milk, bread, eggs, and continue to shop and mill about the store until midnight, when electronic — government electronic benefits cards get activated and then the checkout starts and occurs. And our sales for those first few hours on the first of the month are substantially and significantly higher. And if you really think about it, the only reason somebody gets out in the middle of the night and buys baby formula is that they need it, and they’ve been waiting for it. Otherwise, we are open 24 hours — come at 5 a.m., come at 7 a.m., come at 10 a.m. But if you are there at midnight, you are there for a reason.
That stuck in my mind. It's a poignant image.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/20/watching-walmart-a...