<p>Marginal propensity to consume  is the proportion of an aggregate raise in pay that a consumer spends on the consumption of goods and services, as opposed to saving it. If someone gets extra income <span class="math-container">$\\\$1000$</span> and consumes  <span class="math-container">$\\\$750$</span> of this additional income their marginal propensity to consume is 0.75.</p>
<p>The marginal propensity to consume is higher for poor people since they have to devote higher share of an income to necessities. Suppose that person needs to spend at least <span class="math-container">$\\\$500$</span> a month for their living expenses. Now in such situation if a poor person would get a <span class="math-container">$\\\$500$</span> of income per month (relative to situation when the person would have nothing) they will have marginal propensity to consume 1 whether such person likes it or not as all additional income they get will be spend on these necessities. Person whose income would increase <span class="math-container">$\\\$1000$</span> (again relative to 0) will have to have at least marginal propensity to consume 0.5 and person with income increase of <span class="math-container">$\\\$10000$</span> (again relative to 0) at least marginal propensity 0.05. Of course, the richer people wont consume only necessities but the point is that as peoples incomes decrease the necessities become higher share of their budget.</p>
<p>At the same time as people get richer they spend a smaller proportion of their income as they already enjoy a high standard of living and thus are able to devote more of their income to savings.  You can read more about this in Blanchard et al Macroeconomics: a European perspective or any other macroeconomic textbook.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-22T13:25:10.920Z
"Marginal propensity to consume is the share of income that is devoted to consumption."  Isn't that _average_ propensity to consume?
Adam Bailey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-22T13:56:49.187Z
@AdamBailey actually you are right I was sloppy the mistake was made because when MPC function passes through origin MPC=APC and since thats the case in most standard treatments I just subconsciously equated them. Thanks for pointing out this mistake. I already corrected it
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-22T20:37:28.257Z
Cheaper goods are also often more expensive in the long run (eg: a good pair of boots might last 10 times longer while not costing 10 times more), meaning that people who can't afford the higher cost item will end up spending more than a richer person.
JS Lavertu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T00:20:39.263Z
@JSLavertu Yeah, I remember this as the "Boots theory". Do you know how it's called in economics / more formally?
user
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T00:55:58.117Z
@Pat-Laugh I've heard it referred as "Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness".
JS Lavertu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T07:13:52.373Z
@JSLavertu: This is mentioned all the time but I’ve yet to find any good, every-day real world examples. I’ve never owned boots but I doubt boot durability is a financial struggle for most people. The only example which comes to mind is buying a flat vs. renting one.
Michael
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T07:39:16.570Z
@Michael insurance is good example. Doesn't matter if it's legal protections insurance, car insurance, health insurance ... not being able to afford good insurance is very costly when you need it.
blues
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T07:39:41.320Z
@JSLavertu I saw what you did there, and upvoted it. To boot.
Stian
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T07:49:05.247Z
@Michael Also interest on loans increases the less affluent the borrower is. Rich people can get a loan much cheaper than poor people, and that makes many bigger purchases more expensive. In low-income households even basic purchases like an oven or fridge may require financing, and thus increase the cost
blues
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T12:40:21.297Z
@Michael Buying a car is a good example. If you can buy a reliable car, you'll have many years with minimal maintenance costs. If you can't, you'll be stuck with a beater that breaks all the time, burdening you with massive repair costs constantly. Buying in bulk is a good example too: the cost is much lower per unit, but you need the cash upfront and space to store the extra items.
JS Lavertu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T15:23:07.827Z
@JSLavertu: A used car is a much better investment than a new one. What can the average person buy in bulk? Here in Austria the only thing which comes to mind are the 5kg or 10kg packs of sugar and flour offered at the Hofer supermarket.
Michael
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T15:30:31.807Z
@Michael Note that I said a reliable car, not a used car. There's a significant difference between a few year old well maintained Toyota and an 15 year old rusted out Pontiac that burns oil. As for bulk buying: food cans, toilet paper, dish soap, dry food, etc. If you have a sizable freezer (which is usually not cheap), you can also buy meat in bulk when it's on sale. That being said, a lot of this is probably North-America-centric, but the general principle should apply regardless.
JS Lavertu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T19:33:52.423Z
@Michael A couch or bed, if you buy a good one they can last for a very long time. On the other hand, we've replaced our cheap flat-pack bed frame twice so far. Large appliances, fridge, washing machine, etc. Almost anything that could be described as a durable good.
user3067860
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T21:19:32.910Z
As a corollary to @JSLavertu's comment, often poorer people purchase necessities on a per need basis rather than on a regular basis. Think buying a single toilet paper roll vs buying a 60 pack. It makes economic sense to buy a 60 pack, but you might really need toilet paper right now, and can only afford a single roll at the moment. You are forced to pay a higher price per roll, but you have no choice, as your current funds are the limiting factor.
Dupontrocks11
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T22:54:16.023Z
@Joe actually I do address this. This is the reason why I always in those examples say consider additional income relative to zero. Also, under reasonable assumptions on consumption function the average propensity to consume will correspond to marginal propensity to consume (e.g when MPC passes through origin).  Related to this note that poor person’s autonomous spending takes higher share of their income.While that explanation about luxuries could be valid empirically in some cases there is no reason to believe that in aggregate poor people would be much more ‘spendthrift’ than rich people.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-24T01:20:09.157Z
@Michael I can provide you an example from my starving student days: the city I lived in offered a monthly bus pass for around 50 dollars, cash upfront, at the start of the month. I needed to take the bus twice a day, every day to my minimum wage job, so this would have been a substantial savings over paying the individual fares. The trouble was that I was paid weekly, and surrendering 50 dollars for the bus pass at the start of the month would have left me short on rent, utilities or food. So, I had to pay for full individual fares, which ended up being about $75/month.
Charles E. Grant
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-24T16:47:43.537Z
@Michael: my experience with North America/Europe (mostly Canda vs Germany rather than US vs. Austria, though) suggests that bulk discounts are far more common and substantial in North America. I've seen a lot "buy 2 kg yoghurt - get 1 free" over there. Here, e.g. the Metro offers bulk and small packages - and the bulk is often more expensive per unit than the small package. However, wrt. poor people economics, also there I found that the bigger difference is in cooking/baking yourself.
cbeleites
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-24T19:22:42.267Z
@Michael I've seen this effect with shoes actually. US\$20 shoes: fell apart in 3 months. US\$80 shoes: lasted a year and broke apart a little bit, "repair"able with hot glue. Haven't gone more expensive than that.
Criticize SE actions means ban
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-22T08:25:21.913Z
2020-09-22T13:53:56.203Z
2020-09-22T13:53:56.203Z
1muflon1
<p>This is about the <em>ratio</em> of spending to saving. It does not mean that low-income earners spend more money than high-income earners. It means that low-income earners spend, <em>as opposed to save</em>, a greater proportion of their earnings.</p>
<p>Broadly generalising, the reason for this is straightforward: if the bill for a person's rent, food, and other basic expenditure is a very large proportion of their income—or indeed greater than their income—then they will not be able to save any significant proportion of their income or, in some cases, anything at all. In other words they will spend a higher ratio of their earnings than people who earn a lot. High-income earners have the luxury of having money to be able to save, and so many of them do. Therefore, they spend a lower proportion of their income.</p>
<p>In short, low-income earners spend a higher proportion of their income as opposed to saving it. This does not mean that they spend more actual money (dollars, euros, roubles etc) per person than other earners. Quite the reverse.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T14:04:17.787Z
The OP may be expecting that this will be offset by the low-income person purchasing cheaper alternatives. A rich person lives in an expensive home and eats steak, a poor person rents an apartment and eats chicken. However, there's a limit to how much you can reduce costs.
Barmar
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-26T01:51:03.497Z
@Barmar Yes, quite right.
Araucaria - Not here any more.
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-22T23:38:16.757Z
2020-09-23T12:31:14.743Z
2020-09-23T12:31:14.743Z
Araucaria - Not here any more.
<p>It's expensive to be poor. Not being able to meaningfully save money for a big purchase means that you lose the potential financial benefits that big purchase might have given you.</p>
<p>This is (humorously) illustrated by Terry Pratchett's fictional character Sam Vimes, in the book <em>Men At Arms</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T03:34:37.210Z
2020-09-23T03:34:37.210Z
probably_someone
<p>Have you ever heard of 'living paycheck to paycheck'?  It's another way of saying the person spends all the money they take in.</p>
<p>How many millionaires live paycheck to paycheck?  How many poor people?  The obvious answer is that it will be much more common the lower your income is.</p>
<p>At the extreme case, if your income is just dollars per day you will be spending 100% of it on food just to get enough calories for survival.  On the other end of the spectrum, a billionaire would find it nearly impossible to spend money fast enough to run out.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-22T16:36:52.407Z
2020-09-22T16:42:53.810Z
2020-09-22T16:42:53.810Z
eps
<p>Try to connect to your personal experience or to that of people you know regarding living expenses and relevant fees. If you or your peers are earning-relatively-low income then it’s highly likely that the better part of that -relatively-small amount is spent rather than saved. Another way to state that fact is by saying that you or your peers or people at the low end of the income distribution in general, enjoy a high propensity to consumption (out of income, that is).</p>
<p>Usually, that result is cast it in a psychological perspective about relative abstinence propensities between poor and wealthier people. Irrespective of methodological loyalties, it is a fact that income can either be spent or it can be saved. Statements about the propensity to consume, are effectively statements about the uses of income (spending vs saving).</p>
<p>Notice we are not saying anything about wealth and related streams of earnings originating from property, titles etc. I guess you could say that a tacit assumption is that poor people own little or no wealth and as such enjoy a single revenue stream which is-for the most part-wages and salaries (and probably whatever net transfers they are entitled to by local, state or federal governments depending on the jurisdiction of their domicile or otherwise).</p>
<p>Another way to see this is by trying to convince yourself that for the most part (and if you don’t include luxury goods like yachts and sport cars etc) in a cross-section of consumption baskets across different levels of income, the value of commodities purchased increases with the income bucket but the rate of increase in bundle price is lower than the rate of increase in incomes. Simply put, poor people spend a larger share of their income for the same range of goods that wealthier people purchase.</p>
<p>Now, one needs to consider a bit what kinds of commodities and services enter the baskets of consumers. There are items like foods and beverages, there’s clothing and shoes, there’s housing and related services eg repair services, there’s also transportation related services and there are fees for education services eg kids in college, fees for insurance services eg retirement plans and medical coverage plans and probably other relevant costs like utilities, municipal fees or whatever applies at different jurisdictions. Generally speaking, the items that cost more in a family or personal budget are those related to institutional services like education, insurance etc.</p>
<p>In more advanced countries, services related to institutional units are tightly integrated in the economic process eg there’s tripartite participation in employee insurance (probably mostly a European thing), medical and retirement plans are usually parceled with remuneration packages (or at least it used to be the case for the majority of the workforce) etc. On the other hand, this is not the case in developing countries in general and China in particular.</p>
<p>A major theme about Chinese economic development is financial repression. This simply means that the Chinese authorities hold interest rates artificially low in order to facilitate economic growth. Low interest rates induce investment but they also allow misallocation of resources, mainly because the financial system in China is highly regulated and subordinate to state objectives. In such an institutional setting, the Chinese people (workers and consumers alike) face a difficult budgeting problem, namely how to allocate their incomes between consumption and saving. Savings need to be abundant enough to cover for medical expenses and retirement because classes of assets that tend to relevant needs are not provided otherwise. The people need to fend for themselves in that regard.</p>
<p>So, in an uncertain environment, consumption is held artificially low, by low interest rates that eventually translate into high propensity to save for the Chinese people (or what is equivalent, low propensity to consume).</p>
<p>If you are interested in all things Chinese I strongly urge you to look up Michael Pettis. I’m convinced his writings will be addressing the bulk of your concerns and even if you don’t agree, for some reason, to his approach, you’ll definitely have a solid argument to grind your teeth against.</p>
<p>Hope any of this helps.</p>
<p>Have a nice one!</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-24T09:13:13.913Z
2020-09-24T09:13:13.913Z
jojobaba
<p>they do NOT spend more as that is impossible</p>
<p>they have a PROPENSITY  to spend which is normal as the less money you have the more you have to spend on rent food yada yada</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-22T20:00:23.930Z
2020-09-22T20:00:23.930Z
jj me
<p>I am reading an article in the Economist.</p>
<p>It is discussing the China's unbalanced economy especially the lower household consumption proportion in GDP than the global average. The writer thinks the poor social safety net in China plays a part in curbing the household consumption.</p>
<p>Then follows the below sentence.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As low-income earners have a higher propensity to spend, the lack of
support weighs on consumption more generally.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't quite understand why low-income earners have a higher tendency to consume.</p>
<p>I can't find any other supporting details in the article as if the writer takes it as a common sense.</p>
<p>Anybody could help to shed some light on it?</p>
<p>Thanks.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T09:07:36.670Z
I recently watched [Why It's More Expensive To Be Poor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLwRZibUqL0) on Youtube. It's not a full answer to your question, and highly US-centric, but it may offer some insights.
marcelm
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T15:28:21.837Z
It could be something psychological: Compensating the feeling of being poor by consuming. Perhaps that is common sense/belief in writers background. Also, judging from some of my acquaintances, perhaps not too far fetched.
Martin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T17:45:54.730Z
Just as an example: here in the U.S., a standard Costco membership (a membership-based store chain) costs \$60, while an Executive membership costs \$120. The Executive membership has a 2% rewards program, which means you get 2% of whatever you spent that year back as a gift certificate that year. So those who can afford to spend \$6,000+ per year there (\$116+ per week), they get their membership for essentially free, whereas those who can't have to spend at least \$60 per year in membership fees.
gparyani
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-23T22:42:31.770Z
@gparyani Add to that the additional 2% you can get back using the Costco credit card, which of course you have to be reasonably well to do to qualify for...
Joe
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-24T11:44:13.860Z
The premise is [manifestly untrue](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1042718/worldwide-total-private-consumption-by-country/) if it relates to absolute spending. It only makes sense if it relates to spending relative to the size of a household's income, i.e. poor households spend a higher percentage of *their* income than rich households do. The answer is trivial: If you have to scrape pennies together to feed yourself, there remains nothing to be saved.
henning no longer feeds AI
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-24T11:46:10.913Z
Have you heard of [Vimes Theory of Socio-Economic unfairness](https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness)?
eirikdaude
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-09-25T18:31:58.220Z
Lower-income individuals spend a higher percentage of their income paying for necessities.  That is why they tend to consume more than those with higher incomes where discretionary income increases and avails them to invest and save.
Queue Mann
<nonexpert><consumption>
Why do low-income earners tend to spend more?
Pedant
# Why do low-income earners tend to spend more?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-09-22)

I am reading an article in the Economist.

It is discussing the China's unbalanced economy especially the lower household consumption proportion in GDP than the global average. The writer thinks the poor social safety net in China plays a part in curbing the household consumption.

Then follows the below sentence.

> As low-income earners have a higher propensity to spend, the lack of
> support weighs on consumption more generally.

I don't quite understand why low-income earners have a higher tendency to consume.

I can't find any other supporting details in the article as if the writer takes it as a common sense.

Anybody could help to shed some light on it?

Thanks.

**Tags:** nonexpert, consumption

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I recently watched [Why It's More Expensive To Be Poor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLwRZibUqL0) on Youtube. It's not a full answer to your question, and highly US-centric, but it may offer some insights.  
> **username_2**: It could be something psychological: Compensating the feeling of being poor by consuming. Perhaps that is common sense/belief in writers background. Also, judging from some of my acquaintances, perhaps not too far fetched.  
> **username_3**: Just as an example: here in the U.S., a standard Costco membership (a membership-based store chain) costs \$60, while an Executive membership costs \$120. The Executive membership has a 2% rewards program, which means you get 2% of whatever you spent that year back as a gift certificate that year. So those who can afford to spend \$6,000+ per year there (\$116+ per week), they get their membership for essentially free, whereas those who can't have to spend at least \$60 per year in membership fees.  
> **username_4**: @username_11name_3 Add to that the additional 2% you can get back using the Costco credit card, which of course you have to be reasonably well to do to qualify for...  
> **username_5**: The premise is [manifestly untrue](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1042718/worldwide-total-private-consumption-by-country/) if it relates to absolute spending. It only makes sense if it relates to spending relative to the size of a household's income, i.e. poor households spend a higher percentage of *their* income than rich households do. The answer is trivial: If you have to scrape pennies together to feed yourself, there remains nothing to be saved.  
> **username_6**: Have you heard of [Vimes Theory of Socio-Economic unfairness](https://moneywise.com/a/boots-theory-of-socioeconomic-unfairness)?  
> **username_7**: Lower-income individuals spend a higher percentage of their income paying for necessities.  That is why they tend to consume more than those with higher incomes where discretionary income increases and avails them to invest and save.  

---

## 6 answers

### Answer by username_8 on 2020-09-22. Score: 40

Marginal propensity to consume is the proportion of an aggregate raise in pay that a consumer spends on the consumption of goods and services, as opposed to saving it. If someone gets extra income $\\\$1000$ and consumes $\\\$750$ of this additional income their marginal propensity to consume is 0.75.

The marginal propensity to consume is higher for poor people since they have to devote higher share of an income to necessities. Suppose that person needs to spend at least $\\\$500$ a month for their living expenses. Now in such situation if a poor person would get a $\\\$500$ of income per month (relative to situation when the person would have nothing) they will have marginal propensity to consume 1 whether such person likes it or not as all additional income they get will be spend on these necessities. Person whose income would increase $\\\$1000$ (again relative to 0) will have to have at least marginal propensity to consume 0.5 and person with income increase of $\\\$10000$ (again relative to 0) at least marginal propensity 0.05. Of course, the richer people wont consume only necessities but the point is that as peoples incomes decrease the necessities become higher share of their budget.

At the same time as people get richer they spend a smaller proportion of their income as they already enjoy a high standard of living and thus are able to devote more of their income to savings. You can read more about this in Blanchard et al Macroeconomics: a European perspective or any other macroeconomic textbook.

> **Comments:**
> **username_9**: "Marginal propensity to consume is the share of income that is devoted to consumption."  Isn't that _average_ propensity to consume?  
> **username_8**: @AdamBailey actually you are right I was sloppy the mistake was made because when MPC function passes through origin MPC=APC and since thats the case in most standard treatments I just subconsciously equated them. Thanks for pointing out this mistake. I already corrected it  
> **username_10**: Cheaper goods are also often more expensive in the long run (eg: a good pair of boots might last 10 times longer while not costing 10 times more), meaning that people who can't afford the higher cost item will end up spending more than a richer person.  
> **username_11**: @JSLavertu Yeah, I remember this as the "Boots theory". Do you know how it's called in economics / more formally?  
> **username_10**: @Pat-Laugh I've heard it referred as "Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness".  
> **username_12**: @JSLavertu: This is mentioned all the time but I’ve yet to find any good, every-day real world examples. I’ve never owned boots but I doubt boot durability is a financial struggle for most people. The only example which comes to mind is buying a flat vs. renting one.  
> **username_13**: @username_12 insurance is good example. Doesn't matter if it's legal protections insurance, car insurance, health insurance ... not being able to afford good insurance is very costly when you need it.  
> **username_14**: @JSLavertu I saw what you did there, and upvoted it. To boot.  
> **username_13**: @username_12 Also interest on loans increases the less affluent the borrower is. Rich people can get a loan much cheaper than poor people, and that makes many bigger purchases more expensive. In low-income households even basic purchases like an oven or fridge may require financing, and thus increase the cost  
> **username_10**: @username_12 Buying a car is a good example. If you can buy a reliable car, you'll have many years with minimal maintenance costs. If you can't, you'll be stuck with a beater that breaks all the time, burdening you with massive repair costs constantly. Buying in bulk is a good example too: the cost is much lower per unit, but you need the cash upfront and space to store the extra items.  
> **username_12**: @JSLavertu: A used car is a much better investment than a new one. What can the average person buy in bulk? Here in Austria the only thing which comes to mind are the 5kg or 10kg packs of sugar and flour offered at the Hofer supermarket.  
> **username_10**: @username_12 Note that I said a reliable car, not a used car. There's a significant difference between a few year old well maintained Toyota and an 15 year old rusted out Pontiac that burns oil. As for bulk buying: food cans, toilet paper, dish soap, dry food, etc. If you have a sizable freezer (which is usually not cheap), you can also buy meat in bulk when it's on sale. That being said, a lot of this is probably North-America-centric, but the general principle should apply regardless.  
> **username_15**: @username_12 A couch or bed, if you buy a good one they can last for a very long time. On the other hand, we've replaced our cheap flat-pack bed frame twice so far. Large appliances, fridge, washing machine, etc. Almost anything that could be described as a durable good.  
> **username_16**: As a corollary to @JSLavertu's comment, often poorer people purchase necessities on a per need basis rather than on a regular basis. Think buying a single toilet paper roll vs buying a 60 pack. It makes economic sense to buy a 60 pack, but you might really need toilet paper right now, and can only afford a single roll at the moment. You are forced to pay a higher price per roll, but you have no choice, as your current funds are the limiting factor.  
> **username_8**: @username_11name_4 actually I do address this. This is the reason why I always in those examples say consider additional income relative to zero. Also, under reasonable assumptions on consumption function the average propensity to consume will correspond to marginal propensity to consume (e.g when MPC passes through origin).  Related to this note that poor person’s autonomous spending takes higher share of their income.While that explanation about luxuries could be valid empirically in some cases there is no reason to believe that in aggregate poor people would be much more ‘spendthrift’ than rich people.  
> **username_17**: @username_12 I can provide you an example from my starving student days: the city I lived in offered a monthly bus pass for around 50 dollars, cash upfront, at the start of the month. I needed to take the bus twice a day, every day to my minimum wage job, so this would have been a substantial savings over paying the individual fares. The trouble was that I was paid weekly, and surrendering 50 dollars for the bus pass at the start of the month would have left me short on rent, utilities or food. So, I had to pay for full individual fares, which ended up being about $75/month.  
> **username_18**: @username_12: my experience with North America/Europe (mostly Canda vs Germany rather than US vs. Austria, though) suggests that bulk discounts are far more common and substantial in North America. I've seen a lot "buy 2 kg yoghurt - get 1 free" over there. Here, e.g. the Metro offers bulk and small packages - and the bulk is often more expensive per unit than the small package. However, wrt. poor people economics, also there I found that the bigger difference is in cooking/baking yourself.  
> **username_19**: @username_12 I've seen this effect with shoes actually. US\$20 shoes: fell apart in 3 months. US\$80 shoes: lasted a year and broke apart a little bit, "repair"able with hot glue. Haven't gone more expensive than that.  

---

### Answer by username_23 on 2020-09-22. Score: 13

Have you ever heard of 'living paycheck to paycheck'? It's another way of saying the person spends all the money they take in.

How many millionaires live paycheck to paycheck? How many poor people? The obvious answer is that it will be much more common the lower your income is.

At the extreme case, if your income is just dollars per day you will be spending 100% of it on food just to get enough calories for survival. On the other end of the spectrum, a billionaire would find it nearly impossible to spend money fast enough to run out.


---

### Answer by username_20 on 2020-09-22. Score: 7

This is about the *ratio* of spending to saving. It does not mean that low-income earners spend more money than high-income earners. It means that low-income earners spend, *as opposed to save*, a greater proportion of their earnings.

Broadly generalising, the reason for this is straightforward: if the bill for a person's rent, food, and other basic expenditure is a very large proportion of their income—or indeed greater than their income—then they will not be able to save any significant proportion of their income or, in some cases, anything at all. In other words they will spend a higher ratio of their earnings than people who earn a lot. High-income earners have the luxury of having money to be able to save, and so many of them do. Therefore, they spend a lower proportion of their income.

In short, low-income earners spend a higher proportion of their income as opposed to saving it. This does not mean that they spend more actual money (dollars, euros, roubles etc) per person than other earners. Quite the reverse.

> **Comments:**
> **username_21**: The OP may be expecting that this will be offset by the low-income person purchasing cheaper alternatives. A rich person lives in an expensive home and eats steak, a poor person rents an apartment and eats chicken. However, there's a limit to how much you can reduce costs.  
> **username_20**: @username_21 Yes, quite right.  

---

### Answer by username_22 on 2020-09-23. Score: 6

It's expensive to be poor. Not being able to meaningfully save money for a big purchase means that you lose the potential financial benefits that big purchase might have given you.

This is (humorously) illustrated by Terry Pratchett's fictional character Sam Vimes, in the book *Men At Arms*:

> The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
> Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.


---

### Answer by username_24 on 2020-09-24. Score: 1

Try to connect to your personal experience or to that of people you know regarding living expenses and relevant fees. If you or your peers are earning-relatively-low income then it’s highly likely that the better part of that -relatively-small amount is spent rather than saved. Another way to state that fact is by saying that you or your peers or people at the low end of the income distribution in general, enjoy a high propensity to consumption (out of income, that is).

Usually, that result is cast it in a psychological perspective about relative abstinence propensities between poor and wealthier people. Irrespective of methodological loyalties, it is a fact that income can either be spent or it can be saved. Statements about the propensity to consume, are effectively statements about the uses of income (spending vs saving).

Notice we are not saying anything about wealth and related streams of earnings originating from property, titles etc. I guess you could say that a tacit assumption is that poor people own little or no wealth and as such enjoy a single revenue stream which is-for the most part-wages and salaries (and probably whatever net transfers they are entitled to by local, state or federal governments depending on the jurisdiction of their domicile or otherwise).

Another way to see this is by trying to convince yourself that for the most part (and if you don’t include luxury goods like yachts and sport cars etc) in a cross-section of consumption baskets across different levels of income, the value of commodities purchased increases with the income bucket but the rate of increase in bundle price is lower than the rate of increase in incomes. Simply put, poor people spend a larger share of their income for the same range of goods that wealthier people purchase.

Now, one needs to consider a bit what kinds of commodities and services enter the baskets of consumers. There are items like foods and beverages, there’s clothing and shoes, there’s housing and related services eg repair services, there’s also transportation related services and there are fees for education services eg kids in college, fees for insurance services eg retirement plans and medical coverage plans and probably other relevant costs like utilities, municipal fees or whatever applies at different jurisdictions. Generally speaking, the items that cost more in a family or personal budget are those related to institutional services like education, insurance etc.

In more advanced countries, services related to institutional units are tightly integrated in the economic process eg there’s tripartite participation in employee insurance (probably mostly a European thing), medical and retirement plans are usually parceled with remuneration packages (or at least it used to be the case for the majority of the workforce) etc. On the other hand, this is not the case in developing countries in general and China in particular.

A major theme about Chinese economic development is financial repression. This simply means that the Chinese authorities hold interest rates artificially low in order to facilitate economic growth. Low interest rates induce investment but they also allow misallocation of resources, mainly because the financial system in China is highly regulated and subordinate to state objectives. In such an institutional setting, the Chinese people (workers and consumers alike) face a difficult budgeting problem, namely how to allocate their incomes between consumption and saving. Savings need to be abundant enough to cover for medical expenses and retirement because classes of assets that tend to relevant needs are not provided otherwise. The people need to fend for themselves in that regard.

So, in an uncertain environment, consumption is held artificially low, by low interest rates that eventually translate into high propensity to save for the Chinese people (or what is equivalent, low propensity to consume).

If you are interested in all things Chinese I strongly urge you to look up username_12 Pettis. I’m convinced his writings will be addressing the bulk of your concerns and even if you don’t agree, for some reason, to his approach, you’ll definitely have a solid argument to grind your teeth against.

Hope any of this helps.

Have a nice one!


---

### Answer by username_25 on 2020-09-22. Score: -3

they do NOT spend more as that is impossible

they have a PROPENSITY to spend which is normal as the less money you have the more you have to spend on rent food yada yada


---

