Look, the title of this Slate piece alone sent me into a rage. I'm surprised I didn't turn green, tear out of my clothes and go rampaging through Pennsylvania screaming "Faith MAD!" (Good thing, too, I don't have the insurance to cover that.)
I May Be Poor Now, but Wait Until I'm 65 ...
Is there a way to get the poor to save for retirement?
Um, no, really. Here's why:
Is there a way to get the poor to save for retirement?
THE POOR ARE POOR BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE MONEY!
I know I'm not with the Heritage Foundation or the Tax Policy Center, nor am I an economist, but I do have one qualification the asshat who wrote this piece doesn't: I'm poor! See, I can tell you why poor people do what we do, because I'm just telling you what I do.
What do I have saved for retirement? Zilch. My retirement plan is dying before I get too disabled or old to work. Seriously. I'm not being snarky, that's the plan.
Why haven't I saved for retirement? Well, I wrote this yesterday, Wednesday, and on Wednesday, I had $5 until payday on Friday. The bus costs $1.25 per trip. So, I have exactly enough money to get to and from work. That's it.
Why? Because I'm fucking poor, that's why. That's what being poor means. I got paid Friday, cashed my check at the pawn shop ($8 fee), paid bills (what I could anyway, paid $1 per money order), bought food and then I need a prescription. That was $15. The next day I went to feed the dog breakfast and realized I only had enough to feed him half of breakfast (he eats 2 cups of food twice a day), so I needed to buy dog food. Then my husband says to me that he needs CDs to burn his mixes to so he can check them on various sound systems*, so I bought CDs.
Then I had no money left.
Seriously, I hope I don't get my period before Friday. I hope I don't need any food or medicine or anything at all, because if so, it'll suck to be me. I had to steal toothpaste samples from my boss' office** to get to Friday.
Does anyone think that there is a way of getting me to save for retirement without giving me more money?
Apparently, economists do. Apparently, if they just convince me of the benefits of a 401(k) I'll rush right out and fill one up!
Through automatic savings . . . By simply switching the default—requiring people to opt out of a savings program, rather than asking them to opt in—the savings rate could shift significantly.
Seriously, that's the answer. Just take money I need to buy toothpaste out of my check automatically, and everything will be fine. Because it's not like I need every penny of my check or anything. And I love explaining things like that to the woman in charge of payroll. It was awesome explaining to her why direct deposit is not for me. (There are so many judgments against me, if I ever deposit any money into a bank account, I'll never see it again.)
Some have advocated making a retirement-savings tax credit refundable, which means that if the value of the credit exceeds the worker's tax bill, the government would actually deliver a check for the difference. In effect, the working poor could pay a negative tax.
That's not so bad, but keep in mind, I don't need toothpaste next March, I need it yesterday. That's what being poor is about. A person with money notices that their stove is acting funny and shops the sales to replace it. A poor person notices that their stove is acting up and does nothing, because they don't have the money to do anything, and then when the stove completely stops working, they stop cooking or they ask around to see if a friend has one. If you give this person the option of $200 now or $200 six months from now, what do you think they'll do? In fact, they'll take the $200 now even if the figure six months from now is $1,000, because they need a stove now. Which brings me to the last suggested solution:
A few think the only way to really pump up savings among the poor is to offer a matching program, similar to the way some companies match employee contributions to 401(k) accounts. Uncle Sam would pitch in $2 for every $1 a low-wage earner contributes, and he would match middle-class contributions dollar-for-dollar. The rich would be on their own.
Again, if you have money to pay bills and buy food and deal with broken appliances, then that probably seems like a great deal. But if you really, really need $200 today, $600 30 years from now is not much of an incentive to wait, now is it?
*Please say you'll participate in the release of The Cheat Code's first album! The songs are so good they may actually cure cancer!
**Once I borrowed on from him before a dentist appointment and he told me to take one any time I wanted, so it's not technically stealing. Poverty turns one into quite the ethicist.
Agreed. The poor are poor because they don't have money.
ReplyDeleteFrom my experience with my peers in the middle class is that they really don't know how to manage money and perhaps an opt out system for savings may be beneficial for them.
What kind of music is the Cheat Code? If it's something I'm into I'll definitely check it out.
ReplyDeleteI'm a music geek. I used to have music posts on my blog before I went anonymous and renamed it.
The Cheat Code sort of 70s funk crossed with Beatles-esque vocals and a touch of industrial. I'd say they sound like ________, but I'm not really aware of anything they sound just like.
ReplyDeleteBeatles are the best band ever.
ReplyDelete70's are my favorite decade for music if I ignore the existence of disco and cheesy AM Gold stuff like Seasons in the Sun.
Industrial's not my thing but I can listen to it certain circumstances. Sounds like something I'll definitely check out.
Yay!
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that you had to write this blog post. You'd think that anyone who cared to stop and really think about it would come to the realize everything you said here.
ReplyDeleteYou'd think it would be obvious that, as Andy said, the poor are poor because they don't have money (that's just tautology), but I could write this exact post on a new article 3 times a day every day. Y R teh poor so stoopid?! is a much debated subject among people who are not, nor have ever been, poor.
ReplyDeleteYou see, I'm not poor. But I still get it.
ReplyDeleteBut then, there was that day that I got thinking about what it would be like to take a job at the gas station. So I did the math and figured out what I'd make per month if I worke 40 hours/week at $8/hour. Then I looked at my bills and started subtracting. I ran out of money. I took away the luxuries I lived with, redid the money, and still ran out of money. Then I realized I didn't account for taxes.
At that point, all I could think was, "How do people do this?????"
Granted, I doubt most financially comfortable people ever stop and do the math.
It's a special day when a Cracked columnist writes a more insightful article than a Slate contributor.
ReplyDeleteOh wait, no, that's pretty much a normal day, weirdly enough. Particularly where John Cheese is concerned. Crude he might be, but his "5 Things Nobody Tells You About Quitting Drinking" has pretty much saved my husband's life. (From my own hands, that is.)
There are different degrees of being poor, just as there are different degrees of being rich. If you are in the red, so that your expenses exceed your income, then yeah, there is no way you can save any money unless you either find some way to cut expenses, or obtain more income.
ReplyDeleteBut not every poor person spends all his/her money on absolute necessities. By tracking & allocating money better, it is possible to save. I know this from personal experience. It can be difficult and painful, but it is possible. Whether or not enough can be saved for retirement is another matter though.
"cashed my check at the pawn shop ($8 fee)"
Why would you do this? Why not get a bank account and pay nothing to cash your check? I don't know about you, but I don't get paid enough to waste $8 a check on cashing it. I had the worst credit imaginable when I opened my bank account, and had no problems at all getting one. If you are worried about garnishments, liens and so forth, don't keep any money in the account.
Why not get a bank account and pay nothing to cash your check?
ReplyDeleteBecause banks have minimum balance fees, overdraft fees and penalties, and all kinds of lovely ways of hurting someone in PF's situation. In the end paying $8/check might actually be cheaper for her.
"Because banks have minimum balance fees, overdraft fees and penalties, and all kinds of lovely ways of hurting someone in PF's situation."
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of places you can get no-minimum balance checking. I live in a small town and still have multiple options for no fee personal checking. And you don't get overdraft fees and penalties if you don't overdraw your account or do things that incur penalties.
There are plenty of places you can get no-minimum balance checking.
ReplyDeleteAll banks I've looked into require you to have direct deposit before they'll waive the minimum balance requirement.
And you don't get overdraft fees and penalties if you don't overdraw your account or do things that incur penalties.
You know, that's really easy for someone who is self-employed, lived a long time as a professional student, and have multiple degrees* to say. Not so easy to put into action when you're someone who can't even afford to buy toothpaste. When you're struggling (and nearly failing) to live from paycheck to paycheck, having bank problems which comes with fees and penalties is a major part of life.
And be honest, you don't think PF has thought of the same thing? You don't think she's had a dozen other "well meaning" people tell her she should get a bank account in order to avoid paying check-cashing fees? Maybe you should quit giving her advice until you find out more about her situation (assuming she's willing to tell someone so presumptuous any more about her situation) before offering such standard advice that she's probably heard a dozen times before and obviously found it unhelpful for a multitude of reasons.
"All banks I've looked into require you to have direct deposit before they'll waive the minimum balance requirement."
ReplyDeleteYou might want to look harder. Here's one near me, in Pennsville, NJ, not exactly a major metropolis. And that's one of at least 3 that I know of that offer no minimum balance/no fee checking.
" When you're struggling (and nearly failing) to live from paycheck to paycheck, having bank problems which comes with fees and penalties is a major part of life."
Nonsense. I've been in exactly that situation, with expenses exceeding income. I've had those type of bank problems, but they were caused by stupidity or carelessness, not necessity. If you simply use your bank to cash money, and check how much is in your account before you use debit or checking, you will never have those sorts of problems.
"And be honest, you don't think PF has thought of the same thing? You don't think she's had a dozen other "well meaning" people tell her she should get a bank account in order to avoid paying check-cashing fees?"
I don't know. That's why I asked. Apparently you didn't know that it is easy to get no minimum balance free checking.
"Maybe you should quit giving her advice until you find out more about her situation (assuming she's willing to tell someone so presumptuous any more about her situation)"
Oh please. She mentioned her situation in the post. And again, I was asking why she would cash a check at a pawn shop for $8. Maybe there's a good reason I'm not aware of.
"For a recently divorced woman with a fairly high debt to income ratio I have pretty good credit. That would all come crashing down if I got sick or lost my job or missed a week's pay for any reason whatsoever."
ReplyDeleteRemember last week when I said this on your credit check post? Well, PF, I guess I jinxed myself. I joined the ranks of the unemployed on Friday in an involuntary manner. So here's to hoping I don't stay that way or The Take Back Man will be pounding at my door.
Yes, Jarred, I've done the math. It doesn't look good for the home team. Of course it could always be worse. :)
My husband and I live very close to the margins, but we have a little bit more of a buffer. My father-in-law is baffled by why we are putting our meager extra funds in a savings account instead of a 401K. "It's free money!" exclaims he. "Just save it there instead". Said father-in-law does not understand the concept of "3 years before you can draw on your 401K". I don't know what will happen in the next three years, but here's what we've had for emergencies in the last three years: car needs new transmission, car dies completely, elbow split open because of poor safety conditions at work (yay worker's compensation! Boo lost time at work), student loans have come due, one spouse has been laid of at least 3 times, rent has been raised, tree smashed through window, tonsilitus. So, unless he can predict that nothing bad will happen in three years, we need money that we can access. (Can't win for losing- we are being responsible by pulling out money, as small as the amount sometimes is, but since it's not in the RIGHT place, we're being irresponsible).
ReplyDeleteSo, you see, if you live close to the margins, you are one miscalculation, emergency, or bad luck away from being screwed over sideways, not including the fact that you have to have access to the credit union, and upfront money to put in savings. But fuck it, just be perfect and have everything perfect happen and then everything will be fine.
Dangit, a whole section of my post disappeared into the luminous ether! Well, short form:
ReplyDeleteCredit unions require you to be a member, so you have to have some minimum amount in savings. If you're math is off a penny, you get nailed with overdraft fees. If you have something go wrong that isn't even your fault, you get nailed with overdraft fees.
My friends had this happen to them; short form of the comment I posted:
They live very frugally, but since he works 38 hours a week and she's freelance, they don't get health insurance. They work hard to make sure they can stay healthy to the best of their ability, including joining a fitness center that is close by. They got on a month-to-month plan that required automatic debit. The fitness center charged them for 6 months by accident. That over-drafted their account, and all of the bills that they had paid that they would have had the money for had the fitness center not screwed up. Fitness center refunded the 5 months they overcharged, but refused to cover the over-draft fees that this caused, basically saying they should have just had a couple of hundred dollars in reserve. Bank said it wasn't their damn problem, and refused to waive any of the fees. They basically lost a whole paycheck because of someone else's screw-up. If they didn't have friends that loaned the amount for the overdraft fees, I don't know what they would have done.
I refuse to have anything automatically debited from my account because of just that sort of thing. When you don't keep a lot of money in your account, the last thing you need is some automatic debit draining it at the worst possible time -- let alone the sort of disastrous screw-up that you mention. My wife and I had something similar happen a couple of years ago.
ReplyDeleteDid you miss the "required automatic debit" part? What are they supposed to do- not exercise? Try and navigate around in the great frozen north? Jesus, the point is that you cannot do everything perfect when there isn't enough money going around. Something has to give.
ReplyDelete"Did you miss the "required automatic debit" part? "
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't, that's why I said I refuse to have anything automatically debited. Obviously that means I wouldn't participate in something that required me to pay through an automatic debit.
"What are they supposed to do- not exercise? Try and navigate around in the great frozen north?"
Are you serious? You actually think there is no way to exercise other than joining a health club?
"the point is that you cannot do everything perfect when there isn't enough money going around. Something has to give."
Really? No kidding. I was just commenting on why I don't like automatic debt.
"Are you serious? You actually think there is no way to exercise beside joining a health club?"
ReplyDeleteIf you live in the great frozen north, in an apartment, no there is no way to exercise without joining a health club. At best, you can join a "walk around the museum" club, but that's not exactly heavy aerobic activity, and it isn't exactly an hour every day. It is goddamned DANGEROUS to run outside in the winter, not to mention the least-fun thing ever, and try and do calisthenics in an apartment and see if it takes 3 minutes or 5 minutes before one of your neighbors comes pounding on the door. But please tell us again about how you shouldn't exercise, get sick, and have no money for a hospital (which they have a pretty good chance of doing anyway) or join a health club but have someone else screw up and it's still there fault for not predicting that someone else was going to fuck-up.
"If you live in the great frozen north, in an apartment, no there is no way to exercise without joining a health club."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. Have you ever heard of programs like P90x? Have you heard of weights, climbing stairs, etc? There are many ways to exercise that don't even involve leaving the house.
"But please tell us again about how you shouldn't exercise, get sick, and have no money for a hospital "
Since I never said that at all, I won't be saying it again.
"or join a health club but have someone else screw up and it's still there fault for not predicting that someone else was going to fuck-up. "
Wow, you are amazingly defensive and have reading comprehension problems. I think I wrote that I had a similar situation with automatic debit a couple of years ago, and that's why I don't use it. Get a grip.
why are my posts DISAPPEARING?
ReplyDeletevery well, i'll do it again.
UNNR: you are wrong. period. not that some of what you say isn't correct, in it's context - but the WAY you say it, the way you ignore what OTHER'S say [then accuse *US* of mis-reading YOU!]
perfect example is the above exchange. Cassandra has explained, and you've ignored, that her friends are not allowed to exercise in their apartment. NOT ALLOWED. it creates NOISE, and the other tenets DON'T LIKE IT and will and apparantly HAVE stopped it. they CAN NOT EXERCISE IN THEIR APARTMENT BUILDING WITHOUT RISKING LOSING THEIR APARTMENT.
they feel the need to exercise.
WHERE THEY LIVE, FOR OVER HALF THE YEAR IT'S NOT *SAFE* TO EXERCISE OUTSIDE.
she ALSO said that.
you ignored that the CONVERGENCE of those two things meant that her friends either A) sign up with a gym, any gym, and most [maybe all] gyms REQUIRE automatic debit - or B) not exercise and then be blamed for any ill-health because they DIDN'T exercise.
you are patronizing and condesending whenever the subject of money is brought up.
i conceed - you are a financial genius, able to massage your money in ways none of the rest of us can, and none of us will even be as cool as you when it comes to money. OK. you fucking win the money-lympics.
now SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT. no one else is you. none of the rest of us are able to DO IT like you. if you wanted to offer non-patronizing, non-insulting advice, we might be happy [or not] but we wouldn't be insulted and angry. you apparantly don't even REALIZE that you are being rude, insulting, patronizing. [or don't care]. the ONLY reason i'm writing this at all - as opposed to, say, clamoring for you banning for RUDENESS - is because on OTHER topics you have good things to add.
just not this one.
[cont]
take you're initial comment.
ReplyDeleteWhere the fuck do you get off asking PF a personal, RUDE, INSULTING and PATRONIZING question like that?
further, if you HAD *ANY* of that reading comprehension you continue to insist none of the REST of us have, you'd see that PF answered that fucking question IN THE POST. which STILL doesn't make it any of your fucking business.
then you went on to tell Jarred [and the rest of us] that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, can get a bank account that costs no money.
i live in Columbus. i tell you - because i've looked! - there is not a single. fucking. BANK. in Columbus where you can get a checking account [a savings account is HARDER] without, at minimum, these three option: you have a VERY high balance that it never goes below, you get at LEAST a level of direct deposit [lowest amount i've seen is $500/month] OR you pay a monthly fee. do one of these 3 or YOU DON'T GET A CHECKING ACCOUNT. for savings, you MUST maintain a minimum balance, lowest i've seen is $1,500 - and if you ever go below that, you're charged DAILY FEES.
sure - CREDIT UNIONS aren't doing it yet. but every fucking BANK here is - because of the new banking laws.
if you're lucky enough to have a bank that doesn't do that, goody for you. but i have literally talked to EVERY bank in Columbus since my bank instituted the above - and found my bank was the LAST to change over to this, with least offensive "minimums". and i don't qualify for any of the credit unions.
but no - as always, because YOU have a bank like that, ALL banks do. or, at least, all areas have banks that do.
stop. just STOP. stop throwing your shit around, stop with the whole "if i can everyone can" and realize that A) it's not true B) it's rude and insulting as fuck and C) all it does is piss everyone off. if you were a troll, it wouldn't be a problem - but you AREN'T a troll. so for the love of little green fishes, STOP ACTING LIKE ONE. just because something works FOR YOU where YOU ARE doesn't mean it can, or would, work for ANYONE and/or ANYWHERE.
dude - i'm telling you this cuz mostly you're a cool dude. but whenever the subject of money comes up [however tangitally] you pull THIS shit and i forget why i liked you at all. just STOP.
"UNNR: you are wrong. period. not that some of what you say isn't correct, in it's context - but the WAY you say it, the way you ignore what OTHER'S say [then accuse *US* of mis-reading YOU!]"
ReplyDeleteNonsense. I accuse people of misreading when they use strawmen, which was and has been the case. I ignored nothing, and responded to specific points. Your accusation is not only false, but ludicrous.
"Where the fuck do you get off asking PF a personal, RUDE, INSULTING and PATRONIZING question like that?
When people post things on their blogs, generally then can expect that people might ask about them. By the way, I'm not impressed by either profanity or unnecessary capitalization. I know you are capable of reasonable debate/discussion. That nonsense is wasted on me and simply serves to weaken your argument.
"further, if you HAD *ANY* of that reading comprehension you continue to insist none of the REST of us have, you'd see that PF answered that fucking question IN THE POST. which STILL doesn't make it any of your fucking business."
Actually she didn't, that's why I asked. And if wasn't anyone's business, it wouldn't have been posted for anyone in the world to read. There was nothing rude, insulting or patronizing about my question. It was an honest question about why someone would do such a thing that seemly makes little sense. If I post something personal, I expect I might be asked about it.
And why does PF need you or anyone else to attack me for daring to ask a simple question? I'm sure she's quite capable of telling me it isn't any of my business herself, or just ignoring the question as she did.
"then you went on to tell Jarred [and the rest of us] that ANYONE, ANYWHERE, can get a bank account that costs no money."
No, i didn't write that. There's that reading comprehension problem again. Thanks for serving as another example. What I said was that they are available. And I gave an example from my rural area.
"dude - i'm telling you this cuz mostly you're a cool dude. but whenever the subject of money comes up [however tangitally] you pull THIS shit and i forget why i liked you at all. just STOP. "
Please settle down. Everything I said on this post was germane to the topic and quite reasonable. You ridiculous overreaction to my comments is even sillier than that of Goddess Cassandra's, who I was mostly agreeing with that automatic debit can screw you up because of bank error -- since it happened to me.
If I sound patronizing to you, it's because I am too old to humor fools. And when someone says something that is clearly factually incorrect, I have a tendency to point it out. And when people respond to their own imaginary ideas of what they think I meant, instead of my actual words, I quickly realize that I'm dealing with someone who is a) too lazy and intellectually dishonest to address my actual comments so that they have to resort to strawmen, or b) incapable of holding a logical discussion/debate.
@UNNR-
ReplyDeleteThe attitude dripping from your comment about how "I screwed up this one time, so silly of me, but I know better" in regards to automatic debit is where I, and clearly denelian, become, as you put it "defensive". The post, my story, and denelian's response all have to do with the myriad of ways that you get screwed over if you're poor. We are "defensive" because you are not comprehending what we are posting.
For instance, I tell you my friend's don't have health insurance, and one of the ways they try to mitigate that is to exercise at the fitness club (trying to stay as healthy as one can reasonably try to do). In the post, I also point out how they are limited by finances and geography, and this fitness center was the best they could do. I even included that in their apartment, they are limited to very few exercises because of noise. You then pull out P90x?! Do you not understand the concept of "limited finances" and "making noise"?
Your advice is patronizing, privileged, and wrong-headed. It assumes that people here are not doing the best with what they can because they are just not as intelligent as your lovely self. We're talking about systematic ways the game is rigged- you're acting like it's all a matter of individual choice.
It is possible that you don't intend it to come across as condescending, and we are missing communications because the internet is such a flat medium. But comments like "get a grip" and "Are you serious?" when I said that they legitimately cannot exercise without a fitness club don't support that hypothesis.
And, I do recall Personal Failure saying she couldn't get a bank account because of her liens against her. I thought it was in this post, but I don't see it anymore. If it's one of those things where that part got edited, you both could be legitimately right- denelian read it when it was up, and you read it after it came down.
"And I love explaining things like that to the woman in charge of payroll. It was awesome explaining to her why direct deposit is not for me. (There are so many judgments against me, if I ever deposit any money into a bank account, I'll never see it again.)"
ReplyDeleteI think this may be a part of the post that is in question. Because it isn't side by side with why PF pays $8 for check cashing at the pawn shop.
UNNR is correct in saying that if it is possible for her to open a free checking account that might be a viable option for her. I don't think he was suggesting that she use direct deposit. But if it's possible for PF to open said account she could keep a teeny tiny bit of money in it and cash her checks at the bank instead of the pawn shop and it would cost PF $0. Having said that, I don't know what the rules are at her work or at the bank. If her creditors lien the teeny tiny bit of money in that account I don't know if she gets to keep it. Maybe the bank sends them the money and closes her account?
At any rate I think that folks who are scraping by and feel they are doing the best they can might get pretty defensive if they feel like someone is trashing them.
There are ways to ask questions and make suggestions if you think you see a better alternative without making other people feel small.
Goddess Cassandra,
ReplyDelete"The attitude dripping from your comment"
This supposed attitude is in your own head. Again, I was basically agreeing with you. You decided you needed to take offensive at something that wasn't offensive.
"We are "defensive" because you are not comprehending what we are posting."
No, you are defensive because you are hypersensitive and looking to take offense at otherwise innocuous statements. I comprehended what was posted quite well.
"You then pull out P90x?! Do you not understand the concept of "limited finances" and "making noise"?"
You made a ridiculous assertion that someone in the arctic has no choice but to join a health club in order to exercise. What you said was simply not true, and therefore I pointed it out. Given that I have to watch every cent I have, and also live in a 600 sq foot space in a duplex (with 2 other people), I am well aware that exercise is possible in small places. Incidentally, p90x is far cheaper than the accumulated fees of joining even an inexpensive health club like the YMCA. And having lived in apartments most of my life, I also know there are ways to exercise while minimizing noise.
"Your advice is patronizing, privileged, and wrong-headed. It assumes that people here are not doing the best with what they can because they are just not as intelligent as your lovely self. We're talking about systematic ways the game is rigged- you're acting like it's all a matter of individual choice."
I wasn't giving advice, I was pointing out some incorrect statements. You were reading things into what I said. And there is no "game" and it isn't "rigged." Stop wallowing in victimhood, pretending everything is someone else's fault, and recognize that your own choices and actions matter. There are things you can do to mitigate your own situation no matter what level of poverty you are at. I know this from personal experience. It has nothing to do with intelligence. Otherwise smart people do stupid things, especially when it comes to money. If you think that's an unfounded assertion, I suggest you ask any financial counselor whether or not that is substantially correct.
"But comments like "get a grip" and "Are you serious?" when I said that they legitimately cannot exercise without a fitness club don't support that hypothesis."
Again, saying that someone cannot exercise without joining a fitness club is clearly not true. Stop pretending that it is. When someone makes that sort of blatantly false assertion, "are you serious" is a reasonable response. "Get a grip" was in response to your hostile overreaction to my comments.
D'Ma,
ReplyDelete"UNNR is correct in saying that if it is possible for her to open a free checking account that might be a viable option for her."
Yes, that's what I was asking.
" I don't think he was suggesting that she use direct deposit. But if it's possible for PF to open said account she could keep a teeny tiny bit of money in it and cash her checks at the bank instead of the pawn shop and it would cost PF $0."
Correct. I was not suggesting direct deposit, just wondering why a free checking account couldn't be used just to cash checks.
"Having said that, I don't know what the rules are at her work or at the bank. If her creditors lien the teeny tiny bit of money in that account I don't know if she gets to keep it. Maybe the bank sends them the money and closes her account?"
Yes, I don't know either. But having been in a similar situation, yet still able to use a free checking account to cash checks, I was wondering why it wasn't possible.
"At any rate I think that folks who are scraping by and feel they are doing the best they can might get pretty defensive if they feel like someone is trashing them."
And that is a counterproductive attitude to have, when people make reasonable suggestions or ask questions in an effort to help. Obviously an outsider isn't going to know every detail of your situation, and might say something which isn't possible or practical given conditions he isn't aware of.
"There are ways to ask questions and make suggestions if you think you see a better alternative without making other people feel small."
That's true. But simply asking why someone is or isn't doing something shouldn't make them feel small.
Also, I don't know what is going on with the comments. You had something in there about me not seeing something in PF's post about her liens. That is the case, I didn't see it. But now when I look back to refer to your comment, that part of your comment is gone.
UNNR,
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't know what is going on with the comments. You had something in there about me not seeing something in PF's post about her liens. That is the case, I didn't see it. But now when I look back to refer to your comment, that part of your comment is gone.
I've been following the comments, too. I think you maybe referring to something Godless Cassandra said.
And, I do recall Personal Failure saying she couldn't get a bank account because of her liens against her. I thought it was in this post, but I don't see it anymore. If it's one of those things where that part got edited, you both could be legitimately right- denelian read it when it was up, and you read it after it came down.
That's still in the original post by PF, it's just not with the part where she pays $8 for check cashing.
Which $8 for check cashing sucks. But I guess the pawn shop feels they need to get something for their trouble. Just seems a bit exorbitant. Then again, I live in a place that has a relatively low cost of living so that could have a lot to do with it.
My apologies Cassandra. Doh!
ReplyDeleteThat's Goddess Cassandra, not Godless Cassandra. Yikes!
Most people just call me GC. I'm okay with that nickname (though, now I wish it was Godless Cassandra).
ReplyDeleteI've told you their situation, and you keep insisting that this is not true. You're accusing me of lying, and then acting like being mad at someone for being a privileged git is an overreaction. Your "suggestions" are not productive. My behavior is fine- it's yours that needs to change.
"I've told you their situation, and you keep insisting that this is not true."
ReplyDeleteNo, what I said was that it is not true that you can't exercise in an apartment, or that your only possible choice is to join a health club. That's not an opinion, that's a fact. Do I really need to give you a list of links to types of home fitness program options? I suggest trying a simple Google search. Now it may be that joining a health club is the best possible option for their situation. But it is not true that you can't exercise in an apartment. If you claim it is you are either ignorant or being deliberately obtuse.
"Your "suggestions" are not productive. My behavior is fine- it's yours that needs to change."
Obviously I disagree. When you act like a fool, say moronic things like calling people "privileged," when you know little to nothing about them -- especially when you've been told they have been in desperate financial straits themselves -- expect to be called on it.
There are two possibilities. 1) You are somehow so ignorant of exercise methods that you really think that it is only possible to get decent exercise at a health club if you can't go outside, and are worried about making noise in an apartment. 2) You are being deliberately intellectually-dishonest and are unwilling to admit that what you said was mistaken, and that I was correct in pointing out that there are in fact other options -- regardless of whether or not those options are preferable.
Of the two, number 2 is far more likely. Which means I'm wasting my time even more than I already was.
there you are, continueing it.
ReplyDeletedo you actually, really believe that i used profanity and "unnecessary capitalization" as some sort of, i don't know, debate tactic? as opposed to the much more obvious "i'm kinda really angry and i'm doing this to let you know that i am speaking from a place of anger"?
of COURSE not - you're going to go with the most patronizing explanation, the one that suits you, and makes you the "rational" one while the rest of us flail around in "unnecessary" anger while tilting at "strawmen"...
there are at LEAST 4 people who have now told you you're being a jackass.
at some point, a RATIONAL person might think "huh, if all these people think maybe i'm having a communication issue, maybe i really am. i mean, they're ALL saying that they think i don't MEAN to come off as a jackass, but that i'm managing anyway, so maybe i should look at what and how i'm writing and see if i can somehow mitigate this response from so many people"
and this is why i say you are NOT rational when it comes to ANYTHING to do with money. you don't mind being rude, insulting, patronizing, condesending, mean, and sketchy - because you know you're right, and the rest of us are just being hysterically defensive because we just can't cope with your level of rectitude.
or some shit.
PF is *ignoring you*. she has to run a blog [plus live in Hell] and A) doesn't have the energy to waste fighting with you and B) it looks bad if she fights with you. so she's doing the only other thing she can - ignoring you with dignity.
maybe i should have, too - except you apparantly don't fucking REALIZE that you are actually hurting people.
you aren't TRYING to hurt people, i think you don't WANT to hurt people - but not only are you hurting people ANYWAY, *THEN* you have the fucking termitiy to pull this "you're only hurt because i'm right and you're too stoopid to understand me" BULLSHIT.
BACK. OFF.
you don't know what you're doing, this is obvious, everytime you tell us we're wrong to react to things that we see as attacks - because, from where we sit, they ARE attacks. these are the things we get told by people who hate us, the rationalizations given for why they're going to take a huge chunk of our money and give us nothing in return because we "deserve it" for being poor.
there are 2 options for why you continue to spout off after FOUR people have called you on it. the first is that, when it comes to this topic, you just can't engage that little necessary component called "empathy". the second is that you just don't WANT to engage said empathy.
of the 2, given that you keep digging it deeper, number 2 seems FAR more likely. which means the rest of us are wasting our time even more than we already were.