Sigh. Okay here we go again.

Look at all the poor people around you. See them? Homeless people. People in houses, barely affording rent, paycheck to paycheck, horrible conditions. Wanna know something? Life handed them a raw deal; but a lot of their situation is their own ineptitude.

I have a $150 pair of Belleville 770 Air Force Flight Deck approved combat boots. They're black patent, gore-tex lined, 3M Thinsulate 200G insulated, Vibram Fire and Ice sole material with Sierra pattern. Insulated, waterproof, breathable, they'll hold up to several years of beating, the soles can withstand 250C temperatures and stay flexible at -32C.

Poor people, homeless people, some of them have Nikes; they're the bigger offenders, because this is often a matter of style, but I don't put too much blame here. Some of them have $30 or $50 shoes. In either case, they last for ... months, and start degrading. They never keep your feet dry.

These people won't save up for a good pair of boots. They don't know how. The quality-of-life improvement for a good pair of boots for a homeless person is high: they keep your feet dry and protected, and also you buy them once and just spend $4 for shoe polish once a year and buff 'em up every couple weeks. A decade later you might need new ones.

Now, it's easy to say they won't save up for good boots, rather than that they can't. Way easy. It's easy because we can say boots are cheap, etc etc, a little expensive compared to shoes they buy but it's only a little struggle to do it and it's not so rough.

What about a bicycle?

Well, a Wal-Mart bicycle is steel, heavy, and poorly made. The parts will fall apart under heavy commuting use. You'll never be comfortable on a long commute. Speaking of comfort, suspensions suck and blow out under normal use; and upgrading your seat suspension is more expensive than a Wal-Mart bike. The saddle sucks, and it's ~$50 for a not-all-bad one that would be comfortable, while the bike is had for $90 on clearance.

So, this is a bike they hate too much to ride a lot. It'll rust if it gets rained on. It's uncomfortable and tiring to ride. You can only go a mile or two, and you have no desire to go further because it's bad. Plus gears and chains and brakes and derailers and shocks go after a little heavy use. The rain totally nullifies the effectiveness of the brakes.

Well then, save up about $300-$400 for a decent commuter (mine was clearance $450, but can be had for $400; it's a 2010 model and I got it in 2011). Throw a $150 seat post suspension on it, a $100 seat upgrade, get yourself a $30 commuter helmet, plus the water bottle is at least $5 or a Camelbak.

There is no way these people are going to put down $750-ish for a bicycle. They need a car for various things, somehow; I know I do. The car gets financed, it's easier to ride, and hauls more cargo and goes farther faster. The bike saves gas but that's too steep of an investment, the pay off is a lot of work and way late.

Never mind when you add on a pack, and $100 of tools and supplies (pump, patches, tube, multitool) to carry with you in case of flat or chain break. It's a money sink, won't do, can't have it.

The poor are poor because they are either too inept to do proper cost projections or just too damn poor to buy things that would help them escape the poor life. A cheap bicycle will fight you too much; if you don't think so, go to Wal-Mart once in a while and, when you see a $50 or $90 clearance bicycle, buy it for a one month daily commuter. See how fast you want to go back to the car.

So, the poor, the very people who are affected most by rising fuel costs, will suffer it. The rich don't care, they're rich. The middle class will juggle judgments.