Attempts to regulate the check-cashing shops and the rent-to-own businesses may have the serious downside of reducing desired services that the poor want and dare I say it, need. In the end, it isn't so much the poor that these businesses target, it's the undependable poor.
The undependable poor will have a history of unpaid rent bills, arrest warrants and nonexistent work-histories. No sensible merchant will take a chance on them without charging a very high premium. New York can regulate to its heart's content, but when businesses find they've no choice but to lose money by trading with the undependable, they'll simply close shop.
The politicians should just admit that it isn't the businesses they're worried about -- it's their irresponsible customer base. But passing laws barring the foolish from paying too much would be, well, insulting wouldn't it? It's the same argument they use against the casino -- the poor will fritter away their money by the mere existence of the casino and we mustn't allow it.
The Democrats (and all this type of regulation comes from them) still cling to the notion that the poor and irresponsible actually vote. Now, while the irresponsible may well turn out in significant numbers for Democrats on election day, the poor usually don't bother. But depriving the poverty-ridden-foolish-community of needed services would seem to me a harsh vote-getter.
Comments