by ericglyman on 9/20/15, 6:41 PM with 63 comments
by wildmusings on 9/20/15, 9:52 PM
1. The absurd proposition that it's unjust that you will find a better deal if you spend more time looking for one. Of course you will.
2. The claim that e-commerce is a regressive tax on the poor because purchases are bigger percentage of the poor's income. You can say the same thing about any purchase. A burger is a bigger percentage of a poor person's income than a rich person's income.
Paribus is providing a great service, but this is a marketing/PR article pretending to be serious economic commentary and analysis. It's just hopping on the bandwagon of a narrative that's politically en vogue (that the world is stacked against the poor).
by jacquesm on 9/20/15, 9:16 PM
In many cases the added on part is larger than the original debt.
Then there's buying quality products that last longer by the wealthy and crappy products that need to be replaced (far) more frequently by the poor and many more examples like these.
by bane on 9/21/15, 12:31 AM
The basic assertion: you make less and end up being charged more is in a sense "correct".
For example: if you're poor, you'll probably shop at a discount retailer and buy discount or knockoff clothes, which will fall apart and need replacing faster than if you had just bought more expensive clothes. Over time, the replacement costs will add up and you'll "pay more" for clothes.
Another example: if you buy in bulk, you can get some items cheaper, but poor people tend to buy in small quantities (e.g. cigarette and alcohol "singles" are a phenomenon that only exist in poor areas for example)
This all sounds kind of stupid, but there's a rationale for it that makes sense from the inside, here's a scenario:
I just paid rent, I have $100 left in my bank account and payday isn't for 2 weeks. I work a physical labor job and my work boots need replacement. Do I?
a) Buy the $29.99 on sale boots at Walmart and hope they last for a couple months?
b) Buy the $259.99 boots at the high-end boot store and they'll last for a couple years?
c) Buy the $84.99 boots at the discount shoe store and they'll probably last for 6 months to a year?
Of course the answer is a). This leaves me with $50 to eat on for two weeks. I can't afford b) no matter what so it may as well not exist and c) leaves me starving before payday.
You count pennies when you're poor, you know exactly how much small amounts of things cost because you spend all your time buying small amounts of things and balancing out the bottom few rungs of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs against your daily purchases.
Getting out of this cycle is very hard. It's not like you can save up enough to be worthwhile. Even with $5/mo left over at the end of every month, it takes 52 months to save up to buy the b) boots.
This means also that you live in a constant state of emergency. Literally everything is an emergency -- and this short circuits your ability to prioritize and make what seems like rational decisions. It also means that whatever spare money/time you have you may as well spend on stupid bullshit because you've convinced yourself it won't make any difference anyway.
It really is a vicious cycle.
by yummyfajitas on 9/21/15, 12:01 AM
But this is nonsense. The federal reserve study doesn't study rich and poor at all - it studies the unemployed vs employed. Specifically, the article shows that unemployed people spend less time shopping than employed people. Is the article really claiming that unemployed people have less leisure time?
In fact, the article actually claims that reduced working time causes a (small) drop in shopping time.
by vacri on 9/20/15, 10:02 PM
Also, I question "The wealthy build a better sense of when prices are low and deals are good." - the poor are very aware of how much their food costs, for example. Wealthier people aren't, because they're not counting pennies. A question illustrating this, taken from Yes Minister: "How much is a pound of margarine?" The really wealthy, the 1%, aren't going to have a good idea. But the poor are aware of the costs of their staple foods.
The underlying point of the article isn't a bad one, but extrapolating "this dude orders clothes sight-unseen from his smartphone every two weeks" into "the poor have it so tough" is a strange path to take.
by refurb on 9/20/15, 9:41 PM
by ams6110 on 9/20/15, 9:44 PM
by frogpelt on 9/21/15, 2:25 AM
by geoffwoo on 9/20/15, 6:46 PM
by shkkmo on 9/21/15, 1:09 AM
However, the article is a poorly written piece of PR. It makes several mathematical errors, mis-represents the study on shopping time, and fails to provide any evidence to back up it's critical point of "e-commerce today acts like a regressive tax".
Why is this crap on HN?
by thadd on 9/20/15, 10:01 PM