
This is what happened when I drove my Mercedes to pick up food stamps - gdilla
http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/08/this-is-what-happened-when-i-drove-my-mercedes-to-pick-up-food-stamps
======
OrwellianChild
The shame and judgement placed on the woman for being both poor _and_ in
possession of a Mercedes really demonstrates a disconnect that people have
between the signals of wealth and actual wealth...

The "2003 Mercedes Kompressor" talked about in the article could be one of two
models:

    
    
      Model               $(2003)  $(2014 CPI)  2014 Value
      C230 Coupe/Sedan      ~$28k        ~$36k        ~$5k
      SLK230 Convertible    ~$40k        ~$52k        ~$7k
    

On their combined income (~$120k), my suspicion is that it was the C230 and
not the SLK...

Note that both are worth very little today. They're just old, crappy cars like
any other. Your old Honda may in fact have fewer mechanical issues at this
point. People revere the badge even on older vehicles where it no longer means
much.

If the middle-aged Mercedes they had was running and reliable, they were
prudent to keep it. The cost of trading down to an unknown car with potential
unknown mechanical issues would likely not save them any money. It's possible
it could end up costing more.

When you are cash flow poor, reducing out-of-pocket expenses is the first
priority. Liquidating assets to raise cash is a quick one-time fix, it's being
done at a time when you have no leverage with which to get maximum value out
of those asset sales, and does nothing to resolve the larger problem of
_income < expenses_.

It is unfortunate, I think, that however prudent and reasonable their choices,
the cognitive dissonance created by the sight of the "luxury" car at the food
stamp offices is going put them at odds with public opinion.

~~~
kamaal
Wealth signals matter. By wealth signals I mean a person's standard of living.
If you are driving a Mercedes you will be perceived as rich. I don't know much
about the culture in US, but in my country(India) there is no way you will be
considered poor or even middle class if you own a car. Let alone own a
Mercedes. Why? That's not very difficult to understand. If you own a car,
which falls between the big money and small money its generally an indication
that you are doing this on top of your existing savings.

Any reasonable person when they first start working should aim to do the
following things in order. Try and eliminate any outstanding debt, Save enough
money for the rainy days, and then comes the next most essential commodity- a
house and if you are done with that- a car.

They way I see, a lot of poverty issues in the US seem to arise from
mismanagement of one's money. If you don't have a home, and don't have a large
cache of savings and have debt on top of all this, buying a luxury car _on
debt_ again comes out straight as mismanagement of money.

~~~
OrwellianChild
You have to appreciate the context of the situation the author came from...
The procedure you describe is conservative but sound for someone who is
starting with nothing and building wealth. The shocks to lifestyle when you
already _have_ some wealth and lose your income look very different and
require a somewhat different approach.

The author began 2008 with dual-source, six-figure income, a modest house, and
a couple of cars, and no kids. Within the year, the couple had twins, had lost
the greater of their two income sources, and had the audacity to hope that
they could recover from their sudden and not-at-all-expected fall from grace.

This is not poverty born of mismanagement of funds, irresponsible spending, or
negligence. It is _temporary_ poverty born of bad luck. It's also the sort
that the assistance programs in the U.S. are designed to help, and the fact
that the author's family was able to recover with that assistance makes this a
success story.

~~~
pdkl95
[There are, of course, quite a few different assistance programs (and
variations) in the U.S. - I'm sure the following generalization fails in
various specific cases]

Your comments about assistance for temporary bad luck nicely describe how many
assistance programs _should_ work. Unfortunately...

> It's also the sort that the assistance programs in the U.S. are designed to
> help

...this is not even remotely true for almost all of the assistance programs in
the U.S. Unless you have literally _no other choice_ , you will be rejected.
This what we get after decades of rhetoric about "welfare queens" and related
fears that someone could be scamming the system.

Do you still have at least ~$30 in your wallet? A lot of programs will reject
you for too much cash. Own anything?[1] Sell it first. Have a pittance in a
retirement package that you're not allowed to touch for 30 years? Take the
90+% penalty to cash it in first.

Unfortunately, we have effectively optimized most of our welfare/assistance
programs in exactly the wrong way. I suspect we could save quite a bit of
money if we dropped the suspicion and helped people _early_ , while they still
had a job.

[1] A single "used-econobox" tier car (YES, they check models and current
market price) is often excluded, in the theory that you can't actually get
most jobs without it.

------
CWuestefeld
_President Obama’s programs — from the extended unemployment benefits to the
tax-free allowance for short-selling a home we couldn’t afford..._

In what way are these programs "President Obama's"? Shouldn't these be
considered "The Congress's programs"?

I really worry about the degree to which my fellow citizens seem to believe
that the President does/should act like a monarch.

~~~
ToastyMallows
If I'm not mistaken (and correct me if I am), the President pushed for these
things to be passed, that's why people often say "President Obama's programs"
or something similar.

~~~
bitJericho
Wic, foodstamps, and many many other government programs have been around for
far longer than Obama.

~~~
ToastyMallows
Agreed, I was merely commenting on how media often says "Obama's this" or
"Obama's bill", because he's often the one that pushes (in this case)
Democratic congressmen to introduce a bill.

------
xrange
>Were we supposed to trade it in for a crappier car we’d have to make payments
on?

No, you should have sold the Mercedes because you already had one other car,
and two cars and their insurance and upkeep seems like an unnecessary luxury
for two unemployed people on food stamps.

~~~
mschuster91
Two people who want jobs need two cars in America, if the stories on HN about
the state of public transport are remotely true.

It's bad enough in Germany where nearly every employer expects "mobility"
(i.e. driver's license+car), and that with our quite generous mass transit. US
is definitely worse.

~~~
xrange
From the byline:

>Darlena Cunha is a former television producer turned stay-at-home mom to twin
girls.

...maybe someone from the Boston area can chime in on the state of public
transportation.

~~~
ohashi
You must be confused. Stay-at-home mom doesn't mean can't leave the home. In
many parts of America, you cannot go or get anywhere without a car. That
includes basic things, like grocery shopping.

~~~
xrange
I guess I don't want to belabor this too much, and maybe this tags me as an
old geezer, but I have personally known families with children, who only owned
one automobile. One person can drive the other person to work, and then drive
the car around for the rest of the day, and then pick them up after work. Of
course we don't know their particular details, like maybe they've got a 50
mile one way commute (which in itself would be crazy for a $25k/yr job).

~~~
Jtsummers
2 children, just born, underweight. So really, let's just disturb them twice a
day so Dad can take Mom to work and home again. Oh, and this is 2008/2009 when
lots of people were truly happy to have any job, especially after one of their
two incomes just disappeared unexpectedly (layoff, not firing). Mom can't take
the car to work herself because Dad might need it for errands or medical
issues with the kids. They owned the Mercedes (and no debt was mentioned for
the unreliable Honda). Why sell assets that are paying for themselves in terms
of actual money (getting her to work), and relieving emotional/financial
stress (confidence that they aren't totally fucked if one car fails).

------
socalnate1
"That’s the funny thing about being poor. Everyone has an opinion on it, and
everyone feels entitled to share."

Wow, these comments are really proving her point.

~~~
hoopism
Everyone should be entitled to share their opinion.

If we're going to choose to address this as a society via public funds it
ought to be a matter of public discourse. That doesn't mean people should be
tolerated for inflammatory views... but certainly warrants some healthy
debate.

------
alexeisadeski3
"Food stamps" are so obnoxious. Just cut them a check or better yet hand out
cash.

~~~
67726e
Would it work better in the end? Possibly. Are you going to have legions of
people up in arms about welfare queens using their hard-earned tax dollars to
buy crack? Absolutely.

~~~
danielweber
Economists regularly ask which one gets better results. These days they are
trending towards direct payment (rather than "in kind"). It sure seems to be
the right answer in third-world countries.

I'm of the opinion that there should be a small amount of no-questions-asked
assistance available, so people don't have to prove to themselves that they
are poor in order to receive stuff, but of a limited quality/quantity that
people of means will voluntarily not bother. That's an entirely separate
discussion, though.

~~~
67726e
I'm not doubting the efficacy or attempting to discredit it. Rather, I am
commenting on the political feasibility or the lack thereof. I grew up with a
well-off mother and a poor father. I've rubbed shoulders in country clubs and
seen people trade EBT for anything and everything illicit.

My feelings and expectations of the poor are still extremely negative despite
all of this. Those of the folks who have never had to experience it even more
so. You would have a hard time of switching EBT to cash in a "moderate"
political climate, say nothing of the current "Fly this plane into the ground"
era.

------
hoopism
mrmoneymustache.com

If you own two cars, one being a mercedes (don't care it's old) and are on
foodstamps then you may want to read that site.

It's not a knock. But you can live a lot cheaper than you think... and still
save money... and be happy.

REVISE:

No problem with public assistance. But I did want to emphasize that there are
people who are very happy living on wages far below what these two were
capable of.

~~~
nilkn
That site might have helped them more _before_ they were faced with sudden
financial difficulties. Since they'd already paid for it in full, I don't
really know how much it would have helped to sell off the Mercedes. They could
have traded it in for a cheaper car and got a few grand, but that would have
probably taken a fair amount of time and effort -- would it have really been
worth it? It's also worth noting that the low-tier Mercedes models are not
much more expensive than a Honda Accord.

To be fair, though, regarding their lifestyle before the crisis, a $250k home
on a $120k income is very conservative by most modern standards. They were
leveraging their income far less than is typical in the Bay Area in fact.

~~~
FireBeyond
"We're struggling to feed ourselves and our children!"

"but that would have probably taken a fair amount of time and effort -- would
it have really been worth it?"

After the first statement? Yes. Heaven forbid it takes time and effort to try
to improve your situation.

~~~
nilkn
This is effectively a non-response. Focusing on regaining employment would be
a FAR better way to improve the situation, and it's not even clear if the car
was worth enough to pay for a decent replacement. Just because it's a Mercedes
does not mean that it magically retains its value or even that it was that
expensive to begin with.

If they are in such a bad situation that they have to sell off their car in
order to pay for some meals, then clearly they needed the support they got.
Giving up personal transportation in exchange for food is not even remotely a
solution to the problem. It actually makes it far more difficult to regain
employment (their Honda broke down, remember?), and the cash from the car sale
is only a temporary bandaid--it does nothing at all to solve the fundamental
problem of "income < expenses."

It's beyond me how you could think that someone who is in such trouble that
they have to sell off all means of personal transportation so their children
don't die of starvation would not deserve some sort of aid. In any case, the
couple in this story, having regained a comfortable income, is now paying
taxes every month so that if _you_ face severe financial trouble you too can
receive some aid without having to immediately liquidate every asset you own
so your family doesn't die, even those assets that are critical to finding a
real resolution of your difficulties.

~~~
hoopism
"It's beyond me how you could think that someone who is in such trouble that
they have to sell off all means of personal transportation so their children
don't die of starvation would not deserve some sort of aid...."

We can kill that straw man together if you'd like...

Who's saying they didn't deserve assistance? I am simply saying that reducing
one's liabilities and conveniences can do as much for your bottom line as
going and getting a high paying job. In fact, if you reduce your outgoing
costs significantly enough (two cars, two insurances) you may be able to find
employment that at a lower wage that will allow you to feed your kids
comfortably.

~~~
nilkn
The post you're quoting was in response to FireBeyond, not you. My post was
reduced to one snarky line of disagreement. If FireBeyond had a more nuanced
point than outright disagreeing with everything I wrote, the onus was on him
or her to clarify that.

> if you reduce your outgoing costs significantly enough (two cars, two
> insurances) you may be able to find employment that at a lower wage that
> will allow you to feed your kids comfortably.

Now they have one car (which broke down) and an income which is just enough to
feed their kids comfortably. While the threat of starvation has been
eliminated, the difficulty of regaining their original income has been
increased, as they're now time-poor as well and even potentially lack personal
transportation.

MMM is not about how to deal with a financial emergency that you weren't
prepared for. It's about how to prepare for emergencies in the first place.

~~~
hoopism
Partially true. It's just as much about realizing your finances are in crisis
and confronting it as much as it is preventing it. In fact there's large
sections of the forum dedicated to just that.

Or see here: [http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/12/03/reader-case-
study-...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/12/03/reader-case-study-hair-
on-fire/)

or here: [http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-
de...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/04/18/news-flash-your-debt-is-an-
emergency/)

or here: [http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/09/15/reader-case-
study-...](http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/09/15/reader-case-study-the-
long-road-to-mustachianism/)

Hate to sounds like a MMM fanboy... but they do offer as much helpful advice
for those in crisis as they do for those striving to improve. It's just more
painful measures when speaking of the former.

------
wfjackson
>That’s the funny thing about being poor. Everyone has an opinion on it, and
everyone feels entitled to share.

I guess "being poor" is a relative thing that depends on background and
upbringing. When someone says they're poor this image is what comes to my
mind, not couple of people with a Honda and Mercedes or ones buying root beer
on a deal.

[http://imgur.com/xzfNmNZ](http://imgur.com/xzfNmNZ)

~~~
fnimick
This is the same BS that comes up every time this issue emerges. I remember
public outrage when a news station reported that (shocker) welfare recipients
had refrigerators and microwaves. Just because you have a car, or a fridge, or
even a TV, doesn't mean that you're not struggling to get by. Do we really
think people need to lose literally everything they have before they're worthy
of sympathy?

~~~
mschuster91
> Do we really think people need to lose literally everything they have before
> they're worthy of sympathy?

This is the essence of pure capitalism. Only when you're truly fucked up, you
can expect help from others.

It's disgusting.

~~~
DamnYuppie
I don't believe capitalism has a stance on helping people in need. Please
point me to any information you have that may state otherwise as I would be
very curious to see their reasoning.

------
naturalethic
wtf subreddit is this again?

