Not GP but these comments and the article are not unrelated.

TFA says amortized cost of things is lower when you have access to cash, or cheap credit. Buying in bulk in large shops is cheaper than buying small amounts at local shops. Proper renting is cheaper than weekly-billed accomodation.

But then GP is saying, the poor often have better access to credit than it might seem, it just goes to things that don't improve their financial situation. Nice cars and jewelry for instance.

I don't really know and suspect both are true to an extent, but chipping in since poverty is fascinating to me and I don't fully understand it (I come from and remain in a modest background btw). Sometimes it's just a lack of cash but often it seems not as simple as that.

> Nice cars and jewelry for instance. I don't really know and suspect both are true to an extent

Yes, it probably is a bit of both, but the GP seems biased towards colouring everyone with the caricature of being in a financial position purely of their own making. It seems incredibly cliche like shouting "get a job you lazy bum" and ignoring any systemic factors and other forces at play as outlines in this article.

I personally have been in situations very close to the threshold of not being able to make rent in the past, and I'm very very far from a "consumer". When the window of time in which you have to make ends meet is on the order of days or weeks it's impossible to make long term optimal financial decisions, not merely because of stress, but because in the short term other people need your money, like this unempathetic landlord who apparently owns many properties.

If they're unrelated then maybe they should have posted in a different thread with a different article.

He is saying they are not unrelated