On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 11:47:30 AM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 10:18:55 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 3:38:39 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 3:25:26 PM UTC-4, sam wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 11:45:22 -0700, DerbyDad03 wrote:


This digital control panel will not survive poor people.

The controls won't survive poor people or they won't survive destructive
people?

How does a person's net worth impact how they press buttons?



Poor wording on my part. This digital control panel will not survive
destructive, poor people.

Probably wouldn't survive destructive rich people either.

...snip...

Which people do you think are most likely to destroy appliances and
damage the place? The family renting a $10,000 a month place, or the
section 8 people renting a $500 a month place? And if there is any
damage, which do you think you could more likely recover your costs from?

Are you asking these questions simply out of curiosity?

My initial objection was to the OP's original comment (which he later
said was "poor wording) that the control panel wouldn't stand up to
"poor" people.

He then reworded it to "will not survive destructive, poor people".

I did not argue. I simply added that "Probably wouldn't survive destructive
rich people either."

"Either" is the key word in my response. The main point is that it is
*destructive* people that destroy things, not whether they are rich or poor.

Which properties get destroyed more? Those that rent for $10,000 a month
or those that rent for $500? This is just more of that PC nonsense.
No one is saying that ALL poor people destroy things. But it's a fact
that low income housing gets destroyed, banged up, abused more than
properties rented to higher income people. The concern the poster
had is perfectly valid.