Another data point: I think Warren Buffet got rich with Coca Cola and chocolate bars? That's basically selling crap to the poor.
And yes, you can make money from an underclass by exploiting people's weaknesses for sugar, fast food, gambling, alcohol, drugs etc. But then you're not solving their problems, you're adding to them.
The mothers: where I live the single moms are often on welfare (at least the media says so), that's why I thought of the government. Because the government feeds them directly. So if you could convince the government that every mother needs X (I don't know, free baby bottles because research has shown kids teeth deteriorate because poor moms don't buy bottles often enough bla bla bla), you would be on your way to a government contract of sorts.
The point is that if they are a big enough group, and you provide something they need, you can make money (I suppose).
Coca-cola is where he parks excess cash. He got the cash using insurance cash-flows (get cash now, pay out later) to fund utility building (needs cash up-front, pays out cash reliably for a long time)
Doesn't this have a side effect of locking those single mothers into poverty? A place to stay offers stabilization, but that alone doesn't help if trying to find a job means losing benefits and not being able to afford a cheap flat, because suddenly landlords don't like you anymore.
There were cases here (Germany) where people had to leave their flat for one with higher rent, because the old flat was too big (welfare recipients being entitled only to so much space). But that was the government forcing them to move, not the landlords.
Not sure if the other thing would happen, landlords throwing out tenants when they don't receive welfare anymore. There are laws to protect tenants once they are in the house, too.
I know personally of a family in a similar situation in Poland. A single mother living with with three children; the moment the eldest will leave house to live on his own, the family will have to sell the flat and move to a smaller one, because with one less person living there, the flat will be considered a little too big and suddenly, all benefits related to it will evaporate.
> Not sure if the other thing would happen, landlords throwing out tenants when they don't receive welfare anymore. There are laws to protect tenants once they are in the house, too.
It doesn't necessarily have to be throwing out, it might just be "renegotiating the contract". Also the person who just switched from welfare to a job might not have a very stable income at the beginning. Unfortunately, welfare trap is a real thing.