Comments on: Reducing the Cost of Being Poor

By: ecguy

ecguy — Sun, 03 May 2009 18:55:04 +0000

they will also need some education on how to use bank accounts. Don’t assume everyone already knows

By: bceconomist

bceconomist — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 13:01:30 +0000

this is like a bailout for poor people. that is not a bad thing. Could be very popular and profitable. Should probably be done on $300 rather than $100.

By: bleedingheart

bleedingheart — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:36:35 +0000

you are only looking at a small part of the cost of being poor. You’ve left out the higher cost of car insurance, the cost to people’s health of working in low-end jobs which expose them to chemicals or injuries that their employer doesn’t provide workers compensation for, greater likelihood of being a victim of crime and probably many more things. I don’t know how to fix those but maybe someone else can look at this site and come up with an idea

By: alewis

alewis — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:56:47 +0000

Yes, I do screen the comments. I get my share of dumb ones and occasionally let them through just so people can comment them. BUt most are quite intelligent. These aren’t like comments on articles about the Red Sox. People who want to comment are very interested in economic policy and recovery. Also since I don’t advertise the site and since I’ve temporarily stopped doing interviews it’s not easy to find. That is by deisgn.

By: harvardeconomist

harvardeconomist — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 22:52:44 +0000

good idea here but I think the banks will need to charge more than you think. They only do $100 accounts because they don’t like turning people away and they make money on the checking and the accounts could grow and the customers could also get loans etc. down the road. NOne of that is true here. Even so, when you work the whole thing out there is clearly a terrific “arbitrage” opportunity even if the bank does end upa having to charge for each transaction. it will be much less than the moneylenders

By: jonathan

jonathan — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 16:07:55 +0000

If the banks will go along with this it also makes many more things possible, I think Direct deposit of income tax refunds, wihch are otherwise a big ripoff.

by the way, do you screen these comments before you post them? The yseem so much more intelligent than comments on other websites.

By: susan

susan — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 13:19:58 +0000

I am very concerned about banks buying back their toxic assets with government money in a 1:1 match. The Wall Street suits will always out-think the government on ways to game the system. This seems pretty easy, pretty ungamable but do it on a trial basis to make sure there isn’t some loophole, some way for people or bankers to take advantage

By: samiam

samiam — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 15:18:04 +0000

My former mother in law did not have account and you really don’t notice how much you think about it until you don’t have it. Sending her money was a total pain. A postal money order or Western Union. Just a few case studies are all you need to see why this should be the idea of the year, not just of the month

By: thinkoobfan

thinkoobfan — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 13:37:38 +0000

Agree with Deb. This is the go-to place for great ideas but lately they’ve been a little too out-of-the-box.

Why $100? I think $200 with a $2 payment to hte government would be a better idea becasue the amount in the account should “cover” the checks and many more checks could be included. You mght have to pay the banks more than you think too. but still a way better deal all around than check-cashers.

By: deb

deb — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 12:03:35 +0000

NOW you’re back in your groove. This si a 10 on a scale of 10. You need to use the social media or some other way of getting these ideas out there so many more people can see thm