Convince me (in Contests)

Mem August 20 2007 8:45 PM EDT

Convince me in no less than 500 words that, "poor people are better at spending money that rich people." You have one week to argue for or against, with a winner being chosen from the best of each side. Both winners will receive $250,000 CB.

drudge August 20 2007 9:06 PM EDT

sounds like mem is tricking us into doing his homework

Mem August 20 2007 9:11 PM EDT

Not in the least. I just want to stimulate some thought here. It seems stagnant.

drudge August 20 2007 9:15 PM EDT

ok then... rich people spend money better than poor people because rich people have ample ammounts of it to spend while poor people promptly run out of it.

this gives rich people a longer period of time to spend money; making them better at spending money than poor people.

cookie dough August 20 2007 9:49 PM EDT

poor people spend money on food. rich people spend money on plastic surgery

Sir Woot August 20 2007 10:36 PM EDT

Depends on how you define better and how the rich people got rich. In general rich people spend their money on things that appreciate in value. This allows them to spend money and get richer at the same time. Poor people in general spend their money to get the best value they can afford. This rarely allows them to purchase assets that appreciate in value. In my opinion the best thing for poor people to spend money on is education.

zeaderan August 20 2007 11:04 PM EDT

Im gonna side with the poor people. most of the world is poor so they obviously have more exp :)

also I'm a poor newly college grad and I'd like to think I'm good at spending money. (1st priority beer... then food)

doh, i think that last line messed up my whole argument...

Mem August 20 2007 11:23 PM EDT

So far no one has been able to read the, "no less than 500 words," part.

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] August 21 2007 12:02 AM EDT

"poor people are better at spending money that rich people." That rich people what?

QBRanger August 21 2007 12:07 AM EDT

It would seem that the word "that" should be "than" or some variation of that usage.

Relic August 21 2007 12:13 AM EDT

Rich people and poor people are better at spending money. Why is this the case? I believe that one of the reasons is that with abundance comes neglect. If you were to go trick-or-treating for Halloween and only receive one piece of candy, would you savor and appreciate that single piece of candy more than if you got a whole pillow case full? I think so.

Just like absence makes the heart grow fonder, I also believe it makes the mind more respectful and grateful.

One important thing to note is your particular definition of "better". What constitutes being able to spend money better? If it is simple volume then one can argue poor people are at a huge disadvantage. However, if we define better as wise spending of money, then poor people win because they do not have as much free choice when using their money, they (for the most part) have to spend their money on food, clothing, shelter, and minimal forms of entertainment. However, rich people have more than enough for the basic things and have much more choice in regard to other avenues of spending.

Because rich people have more than enough to cover the basics (which they also need) it could be argued that they are better at spending money, because they cover the basics as it were and have enough left over to spend on other things not required by necessity.

Imagine if you will a boy that is raised in a wealthy home, his every need is met and without any thought or effort he has all the basics of life and then some. Now on the flipside, you could have a young lady who grows up in abject poverty and struggles to find food to fill her belly. Because her parents are so destitute, she has to find a job very early in her life and learns the value of hard work. Stepping back to the rich young man, he goes to all the best schools, plays a lot and goofs around while supposedly receiving the best education money can buy. He ends up working at a dead end job that pays him enough to cover minimal expenses because after all, mom and dad have more than enough money to take care of him throughout his adult and even married life.

Let’s go back to our hard working young lady; she learns the value of work, and the value of money. She learns to work smart and hard, and overtime begins to earn good money. She struggles hard and pays for community college tuition, eventually graduating and getting an internship. She devotes herself and climbs the corporate ranks of business and in time becomes very wealthy. Now, would you consider the young man rich or poor? Rich if you count mom and dad’s wealth, poor of you count character, work ethic, and drive. Now the young lady, can be considered to have started poor, and is now rich in wealth, prestige, work ethic, and dedication, so is she poor and wise, or rich and wise, or poor, rich and wise?

It may seem I have argued for both sides and I may have, but I think the best summation of my thoughts would be, it depends…on whether you are rich or poor and how you came to be rich or poor. :)

Mem August 21 2007 1:03 AM EDT

You've caught me, Bast. "That" would be a typo. It was, in fact, supposed to be "than."

Mem August 21 2007 1:09 AM EDT

Ok, based on Glory's answer, which is a decent response, it's clear that I wasn't clear. Please take a stance that is either "for" or "against." There will be one winner in the "for" category, and one winner in the "against" category. As far as the definition of "better" is concerned, you needn't worry about how I, personally, define "better." Define it on your own terms, as that will be the basis for your argument.

noneedforthese August 21 2007 2:13 AM EDT

Why poor people are better at spending money than rich people.

Please note, that this entire essay is based around a(possibily incorrect)(n) assumption that poor people outnumber the rich by FAR, and that the definition of poor is significantly below the average income and that rich is significantly above (let's define significantly as 25%+). For the definition of "spending" I will assume that one is losing a sum of money in exchange for goods and/or services (and for my arguments sake I am leaving investments alone).

I am going to argue three different aspects - economy, use, and time. I want to stay away from extremes with all my arguments, because without solid numbers it's difficult to compare apples to apples. I am going to have to guess what the 'average' for each group is, and feel free to disagree - it's just a for-fun essay ;)

Poor people are just better at spotting a bargain. With the rich, the have less regards for the price tags and REGARDLESS of the brand/make, poor people simply get more bang for their buck. A rich man may pick up an armani jacket for $2000, whereas somewhere else in the glove a poorman bought the same jacket at $1500 because of a store liquidation sale. The example can be stretched to convenience - whereas the rich put convenience ahead of price, the poor take the extra 10 minute drive to the supermarket and receive more competitive prices. You can't get a more apples to apples comparison than a rich man buying an apple for a dollar at a food stall and a poor man who brought an apple from home that cost him 10 cents.

With regards to use, the rich are wasteful. Browse through any home/living store - you will see ridiculous gadgets of such incredibly limited use, you wonder why they haven't invented the "western european spanish onion peel disposing unit". Who needs an avocado cutter? Who needs a BUTTER CURLER? If you can't curl it with your knife, you don't deserve curled butter. Of course it's not just the home and living section, the rich simply have enough money to buy things they just "think" they want, and end up not using it. How many poor people do you know with 4 pieces of useless gym equipment hidden under their giant bed? On a related note, who needs to buy a gadget that works JUST the abs? And rich people are more likely to have duplicates of any particular good - duplicates which will sit and do nothing while its better half is being used. Don't even make me talk about women's clothing. Everytime I look at my girlfiend's closet I want to scream at the 3 hours I spent with her buying each and every individual item that she wore ONCE. If it's lucky, TWICE.

What of time? I believe the poor are better at spending their time wisely while spending money. WIth the rich, they simply 'graze' the markets, mulling over things with no specific goal in mind. They could spend hours looking at lots of things that aren't necessary because they have the money to do it. Time is perhaps the most precious commodity, and spending 6 hours at the mall every week when you've only got 70 odd hours of time you're not sleeping/working is absurd. Some may enjoy the shopping experience, but not their boyfriend/parter/husbands. Sure, the poor often go further and longer to get the better deals, but they've scoped out what they wanted. They've saved for months. They go in, and out! If their parents were wise, they were not allowed to linger in the mall of seduction.

In conclusion, poor people are better at spending money because they don't have the time nor the moolah to constantly buy non-necessities. Technically, anything beyond necessary is a waste, and wastefulness can't be a good thing. The rich are the living epitomes of waste, and to argue that they know how to spend their money better is foolish. I'm sure that I'll hear people whinging "but rich people are far better at investing money and getting more money", but please allow me to ask: what will they do with that money? More waste? More investment? I rest my case.

Lady Die August 21 2007 9:56 AM EDT

Well said NoNeed.

Xiaz on Hiatus August 21 2007 11:32 AM EDT

In order to argue for or against, we must first understand how people get to their 'poor' or 'rich' status. Of course, there is no singular path in which one can become either, so for this arguments sake, we'll start by assuming that spending in itself can not cause an individual to become 'rich' or 'poor.' That is to say, a rich person cannot be the result of ムsmarterメ spending, as they were and always will be rich, the same applying for a poor person not being the result of ムrecklessメ spending.

My stance on this matter is that poorer people are worse at spending than equivalent rich people.

One reason for this, a rich person that has the money at hand, can purchase better quality items. Every individual, assuming they have money (regardless of it being a large or small quantity), experiences the notion of 'want,' I believe this could be seen as a product of 'needing more.' In addition, as consumers, satisfying such a feeling is always, well, satisfying. Whereas, a poor person will indeed seek out the cheapest price for a given item, they are limited to their funds and thus suffer by not being able to purchase the better alternative, which they will most likely desire ヨ this does not make them a ムbetterメ spender. I also believe the assumption that richer people will simply spend more money is incorrect. Richer people are more likely to go out and enjoy shopping, not restricted by funds and therefore they are better consumers to both themselves and the retailer.

Another advantage being that rich people have the ability to not be 'forced' into buying something, but have the option to delay and shop around - purchasing only when they truly desire it. Having these options available to them, allows rich people to enjoy their purchases more, leading to a higher living standard. Not having to wait for a ムspecialメ or ムsaleメ in order to purchase something has many advantages

Better spending indicates that the money, which is to be spent, will garner the best results. Another aspect Iメd like to argue is that of spending the money not on oneself, but on others ヨ in other words philanthropy. This is not to say that a rich person will simply give more to a charity, thus yield more results ヨ but being wealthy can allow the donation of not only money but other material, such as defibrillators for hospitals. Again, the poor are limited by funds, thus they can not be as better spenders as richer people.

cookie dough August 21 2007 12:35 PM EDT

my brain crashed

Mem August 21 2007 1:03 PM EDT

Hint: Arguments that refrain from refuting points in other entries will be held in higher regard than those that do.

Mem August 26 2007 12:20 AM EDT

There's less than two days left!

{Wookie}-Jir.Vr- August 26 2007 10:34 AM EDT

Here is the fastest way to sum it up.

Poor people don't waste money because they have to make what they have count.

Rich people simply do not have this problem.

QBOddBird August 26 2007 10:45 AM EDT

Rich people are better at spending money than poor people, simply based on the principle that got them there: they have a tendency to hoard. Many rich people simply refuse to spend on anything close to extravagant in the slightest, which is why they are rich in the first place - their income builds in their banks and they have no outlet. They are very frugal people.

Poor people are in the situation of being poor quite often for the very opposite reason: not based upon the situation of income, but rather a lack of willpower. They buy what they want when they want it, come under the pressure of bills and late payments, and soon find themselves in a situation they cannot handle. The situation here doesn't even have to be labeled high-income or low-income: two people earning the exact same amount could both be labeled rich and poor, depending upon their spending habits. However, the rich person is the one who is better at spending money. Therefore, I conclude that rich people are better at spending money than poor people. ^_^

NOTE: I wasn't talking about high-income/low-income, I was talking rich and poor. =) I haven't a clue if this was 500 words or not.

48Zach August 26 2007 11:10 AM EDT

OOB -- Your explanation is..

*drum roll please*

182 words
852 characters (no spaces)
1,035 characters (with spaces)
12 lines
2 paragraphs

There ya go :)

QBOddBird August 26 2007 4:45 PM EDT

I'm going by characters rather than words, then. Thanks ^_^

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 27 2007 6:55 PM EDT

Poor people are better at spending money than rich people. In essence it's because money has more impact, the less of it you have.

For the purpose of this explaination, there is no set amount for defining rich or poor. The poor just have less money than the rich.

With less money, you can only afford to purchase less than the rich and more importantly, can only afford to waste less. Whether its by losing it, or more usually, spending money on 'luxury' items.

The poor have to buget more carefully than the rich. Eaking out more from what they have, than somoene who can afford to be lavish with thier expenditures.

The tighter the purse strings, the more control you have to have, unless you want to find yourself deprived of an essentail. Be that food, water, bills or orther repayment you must make.

On the other hand, those with more, can afford to be careless, can afford to throw money away. They don't require as tight a control of thier finances, and can afford to waste more. They can afford to pay more for a single item than someone poorer than themselves, and can afford to waste money. The freedom this gives lessens the concerns they need about how they spend thier money. They don't have to be as good gettign the most out of thier money as poorer people do, due to having a larger confort zone their increasesd resources gives them.

LoL! I know this will disqualify me, but I can't strech this out to over 500 words. But I don't want to with hold this entry.

I could always pad it with various 'personal' exmaples, but fluff for fluffs sake is worthless. ;)

Hi im Jake August 27 2007 6:58 PM EDT

Rich people are better at spending money than poor people because how do you think they became poor anyway...they spent there money unwisely

Mem August 27 2007 7:03 PM EDT

GL gets off on withholding.

Mem August 27 2007 9:47 PM EDT

Well, everyone that gave a modicum of effort won some money since there were so very few willing to exercise their mind here. Your loss, and these guys' gain:

Mem (Television Man) QBGentlemanLoser (Kick Murder) $25000 -- Consolation Prize 9:45 PM EDT
Mem (Television Man) QBOOB (Hejin) $25000 -- Consolation Prize 9:45 PM EDT
Mem (Television Man) So Real (Terran Firebat) $250000 -- 'Against' Winner! 9:44 PM EDT
Mem (Television Man) noneedforthese (Score Funnel) $250000 -- "For" Winner! 9:44 PM EDT
Mem (Television Man) Glory (KingMenos) $50000 -- Consolation Prize 9:43 PM EDT

QBOddBird August 27 2007 10:16 PM EDT

Wewt, yaaay for my modicum! Thanks Mem! ^_^

AdminQBGentlemanLoser [{END}] August 28 2007 4:44 AM EDT


This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002C8p">Convince me</a>