enthalpy

Saturday, August 12, 2006


Interesting article defending rent-to-own stores from attacks from do-gooders that claim they prey on the poor.
This month, the Brookings Institution released a report that condemned rent-to-own stores for allegedly preying upon consumers. Last month, the Buffalo News, as part of a series on industries that supposedly preyed upon the poor ("preying upon" evidently meaning "offering a service no one else was providing"), denounced these stores for the allegedly exorbitant monthly payments they charged their customers.
Yeah, it's a ripoff, but it's the only option these people have, as the article explains. And I think the comparison to the 30 year mortgage is the deal break in this argument. A 30 year note on a $150,000 home, even at a low 5.5% will end up costing over $300,000 when the bank gets their cut. Is this "preying on people" that want a house now and don't have $150,000 in the bank? Millions of people don't think so, because it's their only option. But here's the clincher:
I like the way economist David Henderson puts it: you don't help the poor by looking at their list of options and eliminating the one they actually chose.
Exactly. It may not be the best option, but it works for them. What would make them better off? Paying out the nose for a bed, or keeping their $50 a week and sleeping on the floor?



Home