Those "buy now, pay later" schemes aren't really available to poor folks in the same way, not the least of which because you are more likely to have bad credit, often because you owe things like utilities (maybe you moved and the old company still wants money) and medical bills.

When they are available, it is never really for things like shoes or the specialty-sized bra you really need that they do not sell at Wal-mart or a non-specialty store (I spent over $100 for my last one, and had to order in the US or wear something that didn't fit).

Instead, they'll lease you furniture, refrigerators, and stoves with the promise that you'll own it some day (and honestly, for washer/dryers, this might be the intelligent choice as it is cheaper than the pay laundry if you have a family). They'll give you a car loan for a bad car, too.

Buy now pay later schemes aren't even worth it if you are financially insecure: I'd have never done this with my ex, for example, even if I knew that on paper, we might have the money. My ex, you see, is my ex for a reason, and part of that reason was money simply going missing, sometimes meaning that I couldn't buy more food or be afraid of running out of gas. Poverty - on paper - is like this.

Ok it sounds like this is a locality thing. In Australia you can just about buy a pack of gum on these apps and have monthly repayments of 50c. They have been pushed as almost replacements for credit cards.

They are absolutely a trap but if you were financially smart, you could use them to your advantage to overcome the initial investment vs lifetime cost problem.

The issue is not so much that these people have no options, but that they do not have the knowledge to pull them out of the endless traps that get marketed to them.

> if you were financially smart,

The problem is that when you are strapped for cash your freedom of action is limited and it is hard to be financially smart due to the stress.

I agree. But it's still a different problem to the original quote. The problem these days is not that rich people can afford long lasting items that poor people can't because new financial services could be used to overcome the initial investment problem.

The flip side is that when the Great Marketing Algorithm tags you "rich", you're suddenly inundated with special offers, savings, concessions of all kinds, freebies, investment opportunities - some more plausible than others - and other benefits.

You not only get your boots discounted and/or bundled with some other offer, there's a fair chance you don't have to pay for them at all.

I've been on both sides, and the differences are a real eye-opener.

Exactly. When you really need a loan the banks won’t give you the time of day, as soon as you don’t then they won’t piss off.

Doesn't it? Although there are no-interest loans (for a promotional period at least), you are most likely going to pay more than what the price tag says since the bank wants to make a buck too. So the poor people end up spending more again.

I do agree that it is a better scenario than having to always buy the lesser quality item, but you still are paying the 'poverty tax'

Looking up the biggest(?) online player in the space: "We offer payments at a rate between 0–30% APR based on customers' credit."

There it is. Barely hidden by more advanced financing.

I'm not sure what the global scene is like but in Australia "After Pay" has taken over, they charge the fees to the retailer and ban passing them on directly so the system is subsidized by everyone.