View Full Version : The average handouts
Yesterday was the once a year meeting of family , being Father's Day. We are both from middle class 1970s, hardworking parents. Here is how the brothers and sisters ended up and does this show the way it is in the USA now on average?
Oldest woman 56, fried brain on meth and is forever dependent on the government for her care.
55 year old man, government Disability as his back is ruined.
54 year old woman, works and will forever she says as husband is the above. (They live very nice)
54 year old man has been on every assistance available, lost home, works now but continues to accept in his mind he needs handouts. Kids get Medicaid wife,
53 is applying for disability....knees and back?..(they will never get ahead and live poor)
51,52 couple us, no assistance.
Won't even venture into the grand kids. Though out of 6, 4 at one time or another have taken food assistance.
On our three hour ride home we absorbed this all. Tossing in three sets of senior citizens there of course were on ss. (Excluding them just mentioning)So out of all the families who live average, only one does not take help of some sort. Top it off I go to the store in the evening and the family in front of me were buying kids candy with the ebt card,,,,,,,I was grumbling about this by 9 pm.
Just looking at this small extended family, it is not sustainable if this is "average".
ApatheticNoMore
6-17-13, 5:31am
Well are there that many companies just jumping at the chance to hire 50 year olds even if they were willing and able to work? Yes sure many 50 year old still work, I don't get the impression it's easy to find work at that age though.
Ok but they aren't looking for work and have real problems that prevent them from working. The meth head is just a meth head, nuff said. Manual labor will have in many cases burned out the body by that age. To a greater degree that office workers are aware of probably. Most people collect SS by 62, there are a lot of benefits to waiting until full retirement age. They either don't want to and take a big hit or can't (again many people's body's have burned out if it's decades of manual labor). Sure people are unhealthy generally, very unhealthy lifestyles, so that explains some people's problems.
If you want to find average, you'd have to perform math on the statistics of people getting government aid (keeping in mind that much of that is SS and Medicare for seniors, basically people who in many cases worked all their life now collecting programs that were set up for retirement). And then some are just people short term between jobs collecting unemployment that will churn out of the system in a couple of months.
So the first question is who do you want to count? Just direct government aid minus old age programs? Yea my gut feeling is it's not a huge number of people collecting as the overall costs aren't great (but hey maybe everyone and their brother is collecting their tiny check). I haven't done seen data or done math that would get me that data. I said direct government aid because if we're counting military contractors and NSA employees :) we have moved very far afield from what is usually called handouts (I may have my own opinons on that).
iris lilies
6-17-13, 9:12am
DH and I regularly review the situation with our siblings and marvel that there's not one loser in the bunch. Between us we've got 5 siblings ages 50 - 60, all employed or married to retired spouses, all with upper household incomes, all contributing in a big way to the tax base. Most have their houses paid for. All raised children who are BETTERING my generation's economic situation. Really, when my 3 nephews step out of college into jobs that pay $75,000 I am happy! Now, not all of the grand children are bringing home that kind of money, but most of them are doing ok. Only one is problematic--jailed for meth. He might be straightening out.
Of my siblings,
--Male, 66, has lived an exemplary life in MN as a small business owner and entrepreneur, father and husband. His wife is a gem and his kids are wonderful hard-working parents. He did this despite a really rocky start to his own life (his biological parents, one of whom was my father's brother, died before he was six, and he did not have the best upbringing in my father/mother's house, sorry to say).
--Male, 57, is struggling but he and his wife work multiple jobs to make ends meet, despite health problems. I'm hoping his latest venture will pay off, because he's really paid his dues.
--Male, 56. Alcoholic since he was 13. Luckily for him, and unfortunately for we taxpayers, he had a short stint in the army which made him eligible for VA benefits. These benefits have kept him alive. He has never worked, and bounces in and out of rehabs. Lives off of supplemental security insurance.
--I have been fortunate enough never to have to rely on government assistance except for a couple of months of unemployment insurance.
--My kids are all gainfully employed with jobs they love and have never been on assistance--they are all "simple livers" who spend little--three don't even have cars, because they live in Burlington VT and can walk everywhere, and when they need a car they use zipcars. I admire their lifestyles.
So that's a 25% living on the dole rate in my family.
rodeosweetheart
6-17-13, 10:16am
Of my siblings, one aged 59, no form of assistance, ever; he and wife own two houses and live well.
One aged 61, unemployed but worth about 2 million from hard work earlier. His wife works. They live well.
My husband and I are 57 and 58, both work full time and do extra part time jobs for extra money (travel, helping kids.) No assistance, ever. We have dealt with health issues that have resulted in periods of unemployment a nd losses, but are hanging in there!
My three kids--all work, 2 have excellent jobs and are married to women who work, have a very solid future, 1 is on track to pay off 70,000 in student loans in the next 3 years (aged 31). 2 (aged 26) is a father, no credit card debt, own house mortgage free, good job, and are real savers--have saved 15000 over last 3 years, even with period of job loss by son.
3 (also aged 26) has worst employment of the three, dropped out of college, no assistance, but unable to save money or get ahead, which worries me. But he is a wonderful person, resourceful, no debt, frugal to extreme, so he will figure something out.
We were taught to despise any form of assistance--I don't think I could do it. I do have one sister-in-law who was on food stamps after her divroce 30 years ago, but she is now homeowner, earning 6 figures, has a doctorate, very successful.
I have been ill to the point of not being able to work at one point in time (was paralyzed) but did not pursue assistance or medical malpractice, though others urged me to. I think if you put your energies there, you will not be able to move ahead with healing and earning and thriving.
I am sorry for your family members who have these disabilities. It is very tough to be sick and try to find work.
And I am really, really sorry for anyone who is trying to raise kids on food stamps. I do not have any judgment there, just hope that they can find employment and family can thrive.
Other than family over 65 collecting SS, I have no relatives on federal or state aid that I am aware of. I do have a grad student working for our organization who is an Americorps volunteer and as such receives food stamps. The irony is that she comes from a very wealthy family and has taken some fairly exotic bvacations while here - Cozumel, Peru and Egypt this August. In certain parts of the country, seems like a large percentage of people are receiving assistance of some sort.
My only sibling older/brother was on the flip side of the coin. He worked for county social services for thirty some years. His fist job was to verify whether people qualified for ongoing welfare and food stamps. A position that was eliminated due to budget issues. His last job was to determine whether kids living in homes with unsanitary conditions, domestic disputes, or other issues should be placed into the care of the state or in foster homes. His life was threatened more than once. He is retired now and will not talk much about it. I don't think he enjoyed his career much. No one in my family has received government "handouts" that I know of other than veterans benefits. I have a good friend who is on SS disability, but truly needs it.
It does make me wonder what the real unbiased statistics are? Just looking around when I'm out and about it does seem like a large portion of our population lacks the ability to properly care for themselves in one way or another.
It does make me wonder what the real unbiased statistics are? Just looking around when I'm out and about it does seem like a large portion of our population lacks the ability to properly care for themselves in one way or another.
Here's an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/18/who-receives-benefits-from-the-federal-government-in-six-charts/) from the Washington Post with some statistics
And from the Huffington Post (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/05/nearly-half-of-households-receive-some-government-benefit/):
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BN588_Benefi_D_20111005140904.jpg
There are so many unknowns in life, and any one of us may need assistance is our lives. I was once on food stamps & public health insurance, a solid insurance program that exists in WA state.
Had it not be for that insurance when I was unemployed, I would not have discovered & successfully treated a precancerous condition 25 years ago. Now I pay taxes to support it, and gladly. A dear friend was on SSD for 22 years, from age 21-43, with an intractable chronic illness. It took that long for her to get diagnosed, treated, and to the place where she could manage her illness. Now she works full time, and is incredibly active. There are many such stories.
My experience was that I needed support to be able to get healthy & back to work. People needing & accepting public assistance are not losers in my worldview, nor do we accept "handouts". What is gained by such name calling & pejorative language?
And, what exactly are government benefits? The mortgage interest deduction? Check. Public roads? Check. Law enforcement & the justice system? Check. Public libraries, schools, etc.? Check.
ApatheticNoMore
6-17-13, 2:41pm
Most of that increase in benefits shown in the chart are probably social security and medicare. The population is aging, right. I guess that too becomes an issue if the real concern is the economics of the federal government. Though if the financing of the federal government is your major concern, even things beyond "handouts" become a concern.
I've known people who have taken unemployment because they felt the need to work on other matters than making money, I don't mean personal matters (which would be rather unsympathetic indeed) but rather social matters - getting to work on a better world. I judge this much less than you can imagine, even if it's not personally a choice I would make. Unemployment is time limited anyway, it doesn't last forever, most people will spend MOST of their lives working (and those who don't is NOT mostly because of government benefits - they are usually relying on a family member). I think the felt absoluteness and totalness of the no alternative, no way out, even for a short period of time, is what drives that, but I don't think it's why most people collect benefits.
redfox, I agree that there should be safety nets for any and all people who need them.
I tread waters lightly here, but I do believe that people have a tendency to take advantage and "abuse the system"--and that includes any people at any income level. It doesn't mean ALL people who accept government assistance are "losers"--but we might have to accept that in the safety net we draw up there are going to be a few people who don't have to be there.
Case in point: there was a study in Denmark on unemployment insurance. The benefit was for six months (I think--let's just say hypothetically). they found that people found jobs and went off unemployment at the 5 month mark. So they shortened the benefits to three months and people found employment and dropped out of the system at two months:
Denmark has long held the title of the best place on earth to be laid off. With an expensive, generous welfare state, and the world’s most lavish unemployment insurance scheme, virtually no one falls through the cracks upon losing a job.
But the government unveiled an unpleasant surprise in June, when it halved the country’s whopping four-year unemployment benefits period to help mend its finances after the financial crisis.
The reason: Danish studies show that the longer a person goes without a job, the harder it is to find work. Many people get a job within the first three months of entering the system, but many more wait until just before benefits expire to take anything available.
“So you need to have a period of unemployment that is as short as possible,” Claus Hjort Frederiksen, the finance minister, told me recently in Copenhagen.
I think when people complain about handouts, they're not complaining about people who need them... they're complaining about people who are taking advantage of them--whether you are in a middle-income bracket milking disability, or a high level corporate executive padding your expense account.
ApatheticNoMore
6-17-13, 3:24pm
I tread waters lightly here, but I do believe that people have a tendency to take advantage and "abuse the system"--and that includes any people at any income level
I don't think that people in general come with such a tendency. But some people for a long list of reasons will "abuse" a system if you have one. Yea sure. It's not a tendency but an option but of course one with a certain amount of lure to it.
I don't think that people in general come with such a tendency. But some people for a long list of reasons will "abuse" a system if you have one. Yea sure. It's not a tendency but an option but of course one with a certain amount of lure to it.
I do think some people are more narcissistic than others, and some are much more willing to take more than their fair share at the expense of others--call it opportunity or call it lack of character. So I should have said, I do believe that SOME people have a tendency. This world is made up of all kinds.
I agree with redfox that we have to define "government benefits." I came across this item in the news the other day:
"Federal investigators have unraveled a massive scheme among dozens of insurance agents, claims adjusters, brokers and farmers in eastern North Carolina to steal at least $100 million from the government-backed program that insures crops. Authorities say the ongoing investigation is already the largest such ring uncovered in the country. 41 defendants have either pleaded guilty or reached plea agreements after profiting from false insurance claims for losses of tobacco, soybeans, wheat and corn. Often, the crops weren't damaged at all, with farmers using aliases to sell their written-off harvests for cash."
So, 41 people managed to steal at least $100 million. They weren't getting SSI or disability, so on the surface I'm sure they looked like upstanding citizens, but $100 million = a hel*la lot of food stamps.
That can't be emphasized enough: there are grifters in every level of society. For some reason, it's the poor and middle-class ones who get all the attention, while the high-stakes crooks are getting away with the lion's share. (Did they ever find the missing billions lost in Iraq?)
iris lilies
6-17-13, 8:33pm
... I do believe that SOME people have a tendency. This world is made up of all kinds.
Oh, completely, not all, not by any means.
But there is decreasing shame associated with government assistance. That is a societal problem.
Oh, completely, not all, not by any means.
But there is decreasing shame associated with government assistance. That is a societal problem.
A friend's son went on SSDI (disability insurance) this year. He served in the military and then worked for many years (paying taxes all along) in industries that compromised his lungs. He liked his job and was so good at it that his employer accommodated his declining health as long as it could before he was forced to quit. Should he feel shame that he probably won't live a normal lifespan and will be on government assistance indefinitely? I don't think so.
But there is decreasing shame associated with government assistance. That is a societal problem.
I see it more as a decreasing desire to live a life you can be proud of. IMO there is a shrinking percentage of people in society who strive to be productive, who are active in their community and who pass those traits on to their children. Some people avoid that life because they're lazy, but I think most who do do it because they don't have a clear path to get there. The government makes it very easy to get caught up in the system, but does little or nothing to provide opportunity to get out. Without opportunity there is no hope and without hope there is no future (as someone once said).
I see it more as a decreasing desire to live a life you can be proud of. IMO there is a shrinking percentage of people in society who strive to be productive, who are active in their community and who pass those traits on to their children. Some people avoid that life because they're lazy, but I think most who do do it because they don't have a clear path to get there. The government makes it very easy to get caught up in the system, but does little or nothing to provide opportunity to get out. Without opportunity there is no hope and without hope there is no future (as someone once said).
I agree - and I think that is something pervasive across income levels. When oil companies and millionaire farmers justify their government assistances under the auspice that it would be fiscally irresponsible for them not take advantage of what is offered by the government, why can't an individual use the same justifications? A mindset of how you make money is not important - just how much you make. Especially when "being productive" generally does not pay what it use to - many folks getting government assistance are working their butts off, but don't get paid enough to get by. Government assistance subsidizes low wage workers and allows them to take jobs they could not otherwise afford to take. Government assistance contributes to corporate profits and has greatly contributed to suppressing a new labor movement in this country.
catherine
6-18-13, 11:39am
When oil companies and millionaire farmers justify their government assistances under the auspice that it would be fiscally irresponsible for them not take advantage of what is offered by the government, why can't an individual use the same justifications?
That's a shame. I know people think that way, but I prefer to try to follow Kant's Universal Law and think about if everyone in a place behaved this way, would it be a place I'd want to live in? I think the degradation of the number of people who live in accordance with Kant's Law is what we're talking about in terms of more people feeling fine about availing themselves of these "opportunities." (If everyone jumped off a bridge...)
jennipurrr
6-18-13, 12:04pm
I feel like another factor in the increasing disability rates is life expectancy. If you look at the average life expectancy it has shot up over the past 30-40 years. However, those people working manual labor type jobs still have their bodies worn out at the same rate...50s-60s at the latest. Then what are they to do? Many of these jobs also do not pay a huge amount, or really have people in them that are generally "savers" and plan for retirement.
We are dealing with my FIL who has worked as a skilled tradesman his entire life. He is 61 and caught in a tough situation because his back is shot and he cannot do the laborous work he once did. He is too old to go get a desk job somewhere, who would hire him? He has now lost the health insurance he carried for years because he is unable to work and lost his positon with a NASA contractor. So now he is in constant pain without the ability to pay for care. He did not save adequately for retirement but he did have a paid off house which now he is drawing the equity out of to pay the household and medical bills. We are encouraging him to apply for Social Security Disability because he will not be eligible for Medicare until age 65. He has been to proud to go on disability, and he does not want to at all...I think there are a lot of folks that get into similar situations and must take government benefits.
That's a shame. I know people think that way, but I prefer to try to follow Kant's Universal Law and think about if everyone in a place behaved this way, would it be a place I'd want to live in? I think the degradation of the number of people who live in accordance with Kant's Law is what we're talking about in terms of more people feeling fine about availing themselves of these "opportunities." (If everyone jumped off a bridge...)
Agreed. It just pushes my buttons a little that it seems like there's often a higher expectation from those barely getting by to take the moral high road than the big players working the system.
Yesterday was the once a year meeting of family , being Father's Day. We are both from middle class 1970s, hardworking parents. Here is how the brothers and sisters ended up and does this show the way it is in the USA now on average?
Oldest woman 56, fried brain on meth and is forever dependent on the government for her care.
55 year old man, government Disability as his back is ruined.
54 year old woman, works and will forever she says as husband is the above. (They live very nice)
54 year old man has been on every assistance available, lost home, works now but continues to accept in his mind he needs handouts. Kids get Medicaid wife,
53 is applying for disability....knees and back?..(they will never get ahead and live poor)
51,52 couple us, no assistance.
Won't even venture into the grand kids. Though out of 6, 4 at one time or another have taken food assistance.
On our three hour ride home we absorbed this all. Tossing in three sets of senior citizens there of course were on ss. (Excluding them just mentioning)So out of all the families who live average, only one does not take help of some sort. Top it off I go to the store in the evening and the family in front of me were buying kids candy with the ebt card,,,,,,,I was grumbling about this by 9 pm.
Just looking at this small extended family, it is not sustainable if this is "average".
Unless you prefer to support them yourself, what's the alternative? Let them starve?
As to the EBT candy - do you never buy your kids candy? Wouldn't ever buy someone else's kids candy? What's wrong with candy?
What's wrong with candy?? Nope maybe twice bought my kids candy in check out line with our hard earned money. They would not ask. Guess for her it was someone else's money?
Nope guess I have not seen many starving people(yes there are some, but not the ones buying candy). I still count each dollar spent on food, though I don't have too. I guess grabbing a handful of $1 candy bars was not counting to me?
Would I buy someone else's kids candy? Nope, but I buy extra bananas everything I go to the grocery store to give the man begging outside. Figure it is better then money for drugs.
But we all think very different.
My parents had one child--me. Neither of my parents were highly educated but they lived a good, middle class life. My father had a stroke at age 58 and received Social Security Disability until his death 7 years later. My mother died after receiving Social Security for only one year. I will start drawing my Social Security benefits when I turn 66 in December. We have one daughter who has a good job and has never been on assistance of any kind.
My husband is the oldest of 5 children (all boys). The oldest 3 have all had stable jobs and never been on assistance of any kind. The younger 2 brothers have had many job interruptions and health issues and have had various kinds of assistance over the years.
fidgiegirl
6-18-13, 1:26pm
This was a recent series on the rise of disability recipients in the United States. I found it very interesting and it gave me a lot to think about. It's quite extensive - lots to dig into.
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
Yes I listened to the NPR report on disability, lots to think about and why.
ApatheticNoMore
6-18-13, 1:41pm
There's nothing wrong with candy and kids should ask for it if they want it (yea, yea, unless you are in the fanatical anti-sugar crowd - but if you more everything in moderation - remember candy is a *sometimes* food :)). For kids it's often quite positive to have them do some chores to earn small spending money like that. But the parents being on government aid is not the kids fault, it's really not.
This was a recent series on the rise of disability recipients in the United States. I found it very interesting and it gave me a lot to think about. It's quite extensive - lots to dig into.
http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/
Very interesting article, Kelli..
This was interesting:
Somewhere around 30 years ago, the economy started changing in some fundamental ways. There are now millions of Americans who do not have the skills or education to make it in this country.
Also crazy how people who have left welfare have been pushed into disability by the states.
Thanks for sharing.
ApatheticNoMore
6-18-13, 1:53pm
Somewhere around 30 years ago, the economy started changing in some fundamental ways. There are now millions of Americans who do not have the skills or education to make it in this country.
it just occured to me today that we are telling people who are just scrapping by economically (though probably not on govt aid), it's all their fault they got a liberal arts degree, they should have gone into STEM field. So maybe this advice will eventually be taken the same way that the "go to college" if you want to get somewhere in life advice *was* taken - with a lag yes. Only we are telling people this at the EXACT SAME TIME that we are very specifically writing legistlation to flood the market with more imported STEM employees (it's in the immigration bill). What could possibly go wrong? Sometimes it's almost as if they are trying to provoke a revolution ....
poetry_writer
6-18-13, 2:02pm
If you are in your 50s looking for work now, you know just how bad it is out there. Everyone from no college degree to those with masters degrees in that age group are struggling to find jobs.........Add in physical limitations in your 50s....(yes it happens to almost everyone...few escape it).....and its not a pretty picture. What happens when all these people run out of money? I dont know.
IL, I don't understand your shame comment. Would you be willing to expound a bit more? Thanks!
goldensmom
6-18-13, 3:52pm
As I drove through town recently I saw a young couple with 3 children under 3-ish. It made me think of my parents who had 3 children under 3 when they were 19/20. I wondered about the young couple I saw, how do they support their family? Do they support their family by employment or does the government support them? My father worked to support his young family as there was no form of assistance back then. He had 3 heart attacks and a broken back before he was 40 but never applied for any kind of disability. He worked and went to collage and obtained a DVM degree. Later 2 more children were born to my parents. My generation: 2 physicians; 1 computer company executive; 1 electrician; 1 retired government employee (me) and my husband is a chemist. All the men in our family served in the military, not sure if that is germane but it’s interesting. The next generation: all collage educated and employed or in still in school. It’s a family thing, it is expected but we also know that we are blessed and that the sky could fall at any moment.
There were jobs galore when most of us were growing up. You could support your family whether or not you had a degree of any kind. Health care was affordable, and tax rates really were progressive. The economy was robust, and mental health indicators weren't off the charts like they are now. It really was a different time.
My parents married in 1952, at the ages of 24. They were both born into rural Rocky Mountain, working class families. My Dad got through college & law school on the GI bill. My Mom taught elementry school until the kids came along. By the time their third child was born, they were building the stereotype white, modest middle class life on one income, which supported a mortgage, two cars, and five people.
They will both be 86 this year. As my Dad says, "We got lucky, being in the right place at the right time, which allowed us to become financially stable." They still help their three kids, all of us in our 50's, when needed. They have been assisting us to pay some of my immediate medical bills. Their stance is that none of their kids have the advantages they did, and they prefer to help us if we need it. I am very grateful, as are my sibs, though I much prefer to not need it.
If my health prevents me from being able to work full time, I'd apply for SSI disability. I've been paying into it my entire work life. I hope it does not come to that. I do not begrudge anyone assistance, and I believe in the ethics of most individuals applying for assistance -- which is pretty bare-bones at that.
At every strata there are grifters & cheats, as Jane pointed out. Those who do huge damage to our society are those who cheat in the tens of millions, not someone who gets a few hundred extra in food stamps or disability checks.
poetry_writer
6-18-13, 5:28pm
It is very hard to get on disability now. I know people who have medical problems and are waiting over two years, still slugging through the process with no promises of getting it. The doctor who treats them said I DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISABILITY CLAIMS....the doc does however cash the hefty checks he charges...perhaps that is another issue.....Getting it is not always easy and certainly never guaranteed. I know more than one who is truly unable to work and cant get on it........Their situations are , to say the least....difficult.
...The next generation: all collage educated and employed or in still in school. It’s a family thing, it is expected but we also know that we are blessed and that the sky could fall at any moment.
Wonderful family story goldensmom. It also makes me wonder about legacies. In my family it was an expectation that you'd get a degree (I'm the black sheep). My mom's parents did not attend college, my dad's folks held a masters and a PhD so we covered the bases. Anyway, its curious to view family histories from both sides of the tracks and see how expectations of getting an education vs getting a job affects people.
Wonderful family story goldensmom. It also makes me wonder about legacies. In my family it was an expectation that you'd get a degree (I'm the black sheep). My mom's parents did not attend college, my dad's folks held a masters and a PhD so we covered the bases. Anyway, its curious to view family histories from both sides of the tracks and see how expectations of getting an education vs getting a job affects people.
It was expected that we get degrees; there were plenty distributed among grandfathers, aunts and uncles, and my father had a bachelor's degree and law school. So we got 'em. But we're persistent underachievers--we support ourselves, but that's about it. No frantic striving or scrambling to get to the top of the crab pot.
I like to say when I started school, any degree would do--your employer would happily train you--and when I graduated, you had to have an engineering degree. Oops. The only time my degree was relevant was when I interned in technical editing. If I were starting out today, I'd do things differently and focus like a laser on what makes me happy.
Gardenarian
6-18-13, 7:00pm
It is very hard to get on disability now. I know people who have medical problems and are waiting over two years, still slugging through the process with no promises of getting it. The doctor who treats them said I DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISABILITY CLAIMS....the doc does however cash the hefty checks he charges...perhaps that is another issue.....Getting it is not always easy and certainly never guaranteed. I know more than one who is truly unable to work and cant get on it........Their situations are , to say the least....difficult.
Yes, I know a couple of people who are truly unable to work (lung cancer, advanced MS) and are unable to get disability. I think environmental and societal changes have made the boomer generation a lot less healthy than their predecessors.
I can't imagine wanting to go on disability if I didn't have to (and I have multiple "disabilities" that would make me eligible.) I like to work, as a rule - though, all things in moderation.
No one in my family has been on any kind of assistance (well - school loans, VA benefits, etc.) I don't think there is any shame in taking help when it is needed (I'd rather my taxes help people in need than fund warmongering.) At the same time, I would feel guilty asking for help. Just something my parents passed onto me, and not particularly meaningful.
Gardenarian
6-18-13, 7:03pm
Oh, and I have been known to buy candy. Frequently.
ApatheticNoMore
6-18-13, 8:00pm
Much would be expected (often entirely contradictory things and standards I regard as basically inhuman would pop up randomly - so yes you were supposed to go to college and then criticized for going when you did). That you MUST meet these changing standards was a given, but not much in terms of actual help or advice in getting there was ever on offer and I knew I was on my own in all but physical survival from the very earliest of ages. Grandparents gave some money support though for school etc..
So I'm not sure it's true that people who produce children who are outwardly "sucessful" only provide "expectations", I think they usually also provide advice and support (not necessarily financial) - at least that's how I think it works - it's all purely speculative though. I can just as easily believe that most families are half crazy. I know about just getting the expectations ala carte though.
I am the sucessful one.
poetry_writer
6-18-13, 9:37pm
Yes, I know a couple of people who are truly unable to work (lung cancer, advanced MS) and are unable to get disability. I think environmental and societal changes have made the boomer generation a lot less healthy than their predecessors.
I can't imagine wanting to go on disability if I didn't have to (and I have multiple "disabilities" that would make me eligible.) I like to work, as a rule - though, all things in moderation.
No one in my family has been on any kind of assistance (well - school loans, VA benefits, etc.) I don't think there is any shame in taking help when it is needed (I'd rather my taxes help people in need than fund warmongering.) At the same time, I would feel guilty asking for help. Just something my parents passed onto me, and not particularly meaningful.
Many who cannot find work are applying for disability. I cant judge them.......Its a tough spot to be in. Of course not all of them get it. The jobs are just.....gone. Finding work is very hard. Not to mention a job with benefits. If I qualified for it, I would probably not have a problem with going on it.
As to the EBT candy - do you never buy your kids candy? Wouldn't ever buy someone else's kids candy? What's wrong with candy?
My parents were as frugal as they come but I remember vividly my dad taking me to the park to play most saturdays when I was young and on the way home we'd stop at 7-11 and he'd let me pick out some candy. Such a happy memory that surely far outweighs the cost of that candy.
Or my grandmother. She (and grandpa, who died before I was born) lived her whole life barely scrapping by as a subsistence farmer through the depression, but everytime we'd visit her as an old lady about a half hour after we'd arrived at her house she'd get a big grin on her face and offer my sister and me each a big full-sized hershey bar. A little treat but one that was totally treasured by us as kids. (of course years later I learned that this drove my mom nuts. "Why do you give them candy right before dinner??? You do that and they won't eat it." Grandma: "Because I can and it makes them happy.")
jp1's story about what a special treat candy was represents, for me, the whole reason why neither living off welfare as a lifestyle, nor living off your family's money as a rich kid, are good things. When you work, plan, and accomplish on your own, the rewards are sweeter. ....if you ate candy every day, it wouldn't be a treat anymore. I was very surprised to read the linked articles that indicate 48% of Americans live in a household which receives some type of government benefits (what?? Mitt Romney was right about that?!)
I think almost every household receives some sort of government benefits. Roads, police, fire, schools, emergency medical care, environmental regulation, the court system, ... - "What have the Romans ever given us?"
ApatheticNoMore
6-19-13, 4:22am
jp1's story about what a special treat candy was represents, for me, the whole reason why neither living off welfare as a lifestyle, nor living off your family's money as a rich kid, are good things.
Oh I love the candybar stories (no really, I don't believe the solution to everything is sweets, why do you ask?) I can't really get upset over a kid getting a candy bar. Food stamps exist, they do anyway regardless of the candy bar, the parents probably don't collect it just to buy candy bars, and would regardless of candybars, a kid gets a candy bar. To deny a kid a candy bar because "your parents collect welfare", is nothing more than to crazy-make the poor kid, who likely has more than enough problems as is.
When you work, plan, and accomplish on your own, the rewards are sweeter. ....if you ate candy every day, it wouldn't be a treat anymore.
well all we're really talking about is money (it's what the welfare person and the rich kid have that they don't have to work for) and I'm not sure money is all that much of a treat just by itself (it's just necessary). Maybe I've never been deprived of it enough? Yea if you deprive of basic needs it will feel good to fulfill them but I can't help but think of Maslow, not sure we're supposed to really stay there permanently.
goldensmom
6-19-13, 6:27am
I think almost every household receives some sort of government benefits. Roads, police, fire, schools, emergency medical care, environmental regulation, the court system, ... - "What have the Romans ever given us?"
Agreed....and I have the (huge) itemized property tax bill, paid receipt and income tax returns to prove that I've paid for a share of those services along with others who pay taxes. Lucky are the people who enjoy those services without paying a penny in property or income tax.
I am okay with paying taxes but I don't like paying taxes for services I never use such as the county library that is 25 miles from my home and I never use when I already pay taxes for a local library 12 miles from my home that I do use or special education programs in an adjoining county.
Agreed....and I have the (huge) itemized property tax bill, paid receipt and income tax returns to prove that I've paid for a share of those services along with others who pay taxes. Lucky are the people who enjoy those services without paying a penny in property or income tax.
I am okay with paying taxes but I don't like paying taxes for services I never use such as the county library that is 25 miles from my home and I never use when I already pay taxes for a local library 12 miles from my home that I do use or special education programs in an adjoining county.
We have the technology to make most things per use - you could just swipe your credit card every time you enter a library and pay per use - and whatever libraries don't get enough patronage to provide the money to operate get shut down. Same with most other services (always have your credit card ready and the minimum amount available on it when dialing 911 or registering your kid for school). They could even do cars so you only get charged for the roads you drive on - and money is apportioned to the roads according to use. Again, the ones that don't get the necessary funding aren't maintained. Not a place I'd like to live in - but it could be done.
I grew up in an old money hood where expectations were very high to choose the right mate, best education, etc. In some cases, there were kids who married third cousines etc to keep up the "lineage". Except for a few who got into drugs, the rest have followed the programming and been very successful by outward appearances. I think it is ingrained from birth somehow so not sure I would call it advice and support.
catherine
6-19-13, 11:42am
I grew up in an old money hood where expectations were very high to choose the right mate, best education, etc. In some cases, there were kids who married third cousines etc to keep up the "lineage". Except for a few who got into drugs, the rest have followed the programming and been very successful by outward appearances. I think it is ingrained from birth somehow so not sure I would call it advice and support.
Expectations can be a help in terms of raising the bar for a child's potential, or a hinderance--if there's a conflict between those parental expectations and a child's individual calling. That's where the support comes in. If parents are able to put their own "parent fantasies" to bed and support their child and trust their child's instincts, that child will more likely be a success, albeit on their own terms and not on someone else's.
"What is success" is another whole forum topic, because I think we, as simple living proponents, have a whole different perspective on that. I've talked about my oldest son who went from being a high school dropout to recent law school grad. One step along the way was his getting accepted into the PGA at age 19, after taking the Player's Ability Test on kind of a lark.
Shortly after he passed the test and got a job teaching, I ran into a neighbor in the supermarket, one of those "If you're not a doctor or lawyer, what good are you?" types of people that pretty much sums up my neighborhood. She asked me how my son was doing, very sensitively, as one would when asking about someone with a terminal illness. I said, "Great! He's a golf professional, teaching golf every day up in the mountains of Vermont!" Her reply and I'm not kidding) was, "Well, I guess that's better than working at McDonald's."
ApatheticNoMore
6-19-13, 12:21pm
I think it is ingrained from birth somehow so not sure I would call it advice and support.
"programming": it probably is what many people receive. Though if it's programming proven again and again to be "successful" then, that is something I guess, though not individuality certainly. Expectations as such don't even have to have any plan or *program* at all, they can just be expectations with no path to achieve them at all.
I distinctly recall one of my upper crusty friends from high school days deviating from the norm by dropping out of school and living the hippie lifestyle of those times for a while. She shacked up with a young man and I was surprised when she said it would never go anywhere because she knew that ultimately her ambitions were greater than he could provide. She went on to "normalize" and ultimately married a very wealthy man, had three children and they are all on the same trajectory. Ivy League schools, etc.
goldensmom
6-19-13, 5:44pm
Agreed....and I have the (huge) itemized property tax bill, paid receipt and income tax returns to prove that I've paid for a share of those services along with others who pay taxes. Lucky are the people who enjoy those services without paying a penny in property or income tax.
I am okay with paying taxes but I don't like paying taxes for services I never use such as the county library that is 25 miles from my home and I never use when I already pay taxes for a local library 12 miles from my home that I do use or special education programs in an adjoining county.
We have the technology to make most things per use - you could just swipe your credit card every time you enter a library and pay per use - and whatever libraries don't get enough patronage to provide the money to operate get shut down. Same with most other services (always have your credit card ready and the minimum amount available on it when dialing 911 or registering your kid for school). They could even do cars so you only get charged for the roads you drive on - and money is apportioned to the roads according to use. Again, the ones that don't get the necessary funding aren't maintained. Not a place I'd like to live in - but it could be done.
Creaker, I do not understand your response to my post. My comments were my opinion, based on my personal experience and not aimed at degrading or ridiculing anyone else’s opinion/experience. Points of clarification, I pay plenty of taxes for services I do not use, i.e. schools, county wide transportation, senior services, community collage, medical care facility, trash pick up (we contract for a dumpster with another company), Vo-tech center, in-county special ed. and more without complaint. My objection is to being taxed for services that I already pay for in the county in which I reside hence the library and special ed. examples.
I feel that your comments are derisive “always have your credit card ready and the minimum amount available on it when dialing 911 or registering your kid for school. They could even do cars so you only get charged for the roads you drive on - and money is apportioned to the roads according to use. Again, the ones that don't get the necessary funding aren't maintained” and not intended for serious consideration. Am I wrong?
I think almost every household receives some sort of government benefits. Roads, police, fire, schools, emergency medical care, environmental regulation, the court system, ... - "What have the Romans ever given us?"
Yup. And, I am happy to pay my taxes for these amenities! Not crazy about paying for our warmongering, however. I have yet to figure out how I alone could build a road, library, court system, clean water system, light rail, etc. I am very happy with these "socialized" services.
goldensmom, I think that creaker's point was that we all pay a lot of taxes for various services we don't use. For instance I don't have, and don't ever plan to have, children. Schools are typically one of the largest expenses local governments have, so I've probably paid, and will continue to pay, a whole lot of taxes towards something I'll never personally need. No amount of library book purchase costs for those that I check out (and I check out a lot) will ever exceed the amount my county saves by my not having kids in the schools. I don't gripe about it though because I think that schools, and trash pickup, and special ed classes, and libraries, and roads, and fire departments, and most of the other things that local government provide with my tax dollars are valuable services that overall benefit society as a whole. (the federal gov't budget and the war industrial complex is a conversation for another day.) We can't really allow people to ala carte purchase just the ones they need or the whole thing will fall apart. After all how many families would end up not sending their kids to school if they had to pay the thousands of dollars/year that each kid would cost if they had to pay for education ala carte, to give just one example.
Creaker, I do not understand your response to my post. My comments were my opinion, based on my personal experience and not aimed at degrading or ridiculing anyone else’s opinion/experience. Points of clarification, I pay plenty of taxes for services I do not use, i.e. schools, county wide transportation, senior services, community collage, medical care facility, trash pick up (we contract for a dumpster with another company), Vo-tech center, in-county special ed. and more without complaint. My objection is to being taxed for services that I already pay for in the county in which I reside hence the library and special ed. examples.
I feel that your comments are derisive “always have your credit card ready and the minimum amount available on it when dialing 911 or registering your kid for school. They could even do cars so you only get charged for the roads you drive on - and money is apportioned to the roads according to use. Again, the ones that don't get the necessary funding aren't maintained” and not intended for serious consideration. Am I wrong?
I didn't mean to be it to be derisive. I just did a very poor job of trying point out that many things we use are often also paid for in part by those who don't use them. Maybe I misunderstood. Your county library receives no funding from outside the county? Nor the special ed programs?
flowerseverywhere
6-19-13, 11:23pm
Well when we were kids we were orphaned. Neither family wanted us because we were mixed race and my dads never knew his dad. So we went into the system. Taxpayers paid foster parents to raise us, paid for our sneakers etc. and we went to public schools. We were in the same town and same schools and kept our relationships going. When the oldest turned 18 he went to work full time, took college classes and helped guide us. We helped each other but the government also helped us. The girls went to nursing school because we did not want to be poor anymore. We ended up all getting at least a bachelors degree, went on to marry and live good lives. We have paid a lot of taxes during the years and we all ended up getting jobs where we worked with people. Two of us in mental health, one iworked the juvenile court system, one welfare worker and one worked cardiac ICUs. Had we lived in another era or country we could have ended up street kids or prostitutes, and even though we often had less than ideal foster homes in the era of spare the rod spoil the child, we survived and became productive citizens.
Be very thankful if you never needed government benefits. It is really awful.
Flowerseverywhere, thank you for sharing your story.
goldensmom
6-20-13, 7:05am
I didn't mean to be it to be derisive. I just did a very poor job of trying point out that many things we use are often also paid for in part by those who don't use them. Maybe I misunderstood. Your county library receives no funding from outside the county? Nor the special ed programs?
Creaker, thanks for responding and I totally agree with you about services paid for in part by those who do not use them. I truly am thankful that I am in the position to pay a share of the costs of public services. Your questions.....the county library is funded by donations and taxes paid by county residents only. The local library runs on a district system which was in place before the city library decided to become a county library and tax county property owners. I assume the special ed programs receive state funding.
Well when we were kids we were orphaned. Neither family wanted us because we were mixed race and my dads never knew his dad. So we went into the system. Taxpayers paid foster parents to raise us, paid for our sneakers etc. and we went to public schools. We were in the same town and same schools and kept our relationships going. When the oldest turned 18 he went to work full time, took college classes and helped guide us. We helped each other but the government also helped us. The girls went to nursing school because we did not want to be poor anymore. We ended up all getting at least a bachelors degree, went on to marry and live good lives. We have paid a lot of taxes during the years and we all ended up getting jobs where we worked with people. Two of us in mental health, one iworked the juvenile court system, one welfare worker and one worked cardiac ICUs. Had we lived in another era or country we could have ended up street kids or prostitutes, and even though we often had less than ideal foster homes in the era of spare the rod spoil the child, we survived and became productive citizens.
Be very thankful if you never needed government benefits. It is really awful.
Agreed, thank you for sharing that. There is absolutely nothing that bothers me about my tax dollars being used to support someone who finds themselves in a position similar to what you experienced. In fact I would consider your story, in the end, to be a rousing success. It's nice to know that happens.
Maxamillion
6-20-13, 9:04am
My experience was that I needed support to be able to get healthy & back to work. People needing & accepting public assistance are not losers in my worldview, nor do we accept "handouts". What is gained by such name calling & pejorative language?
Agreed.
I'm on public assistance. It's not easy scraping by each month. I'm on disability (both SSI and SSDI) and food stamps ($41 each month, which goes really far with current food prices). I was a foster kid too and had some horrific experiences, which contributes to some of my mental health issues (and mental health problems already run in my family anyway). In addition to those issues, I have a couple of pretty severe chronic physical illnesses--but to the average person who doesn't know me, I'm able-bodied (since my health problems aren't visible) and I have been called lazy for being on assistance.
I worked really hard to make a life for myself though. For awhile I was going to school full-time while also working full-time as an overnight grocery stocker to pay for school (I had grants and scholarships, but it still wasn't enough to cover everything) and I didn't want to take out a loan. I had a 3.5 GPA. Right after I started my junior year in college my life fell apart. I would love to be able to go back to school and return to work and I hope one day maybe I can. This was not how I wanted my life to turn out. I worked so hard to make something of it. I'd love to not have to use public assistance but sometimes life just happens.
Simpler at Fifty
6-20-13, 10:34am
Agreed.
I'm on public assistance. It's not easy scraping by each month. I'm on disability (both SSI and SSDI) and food stamps ($41 each month, which goes really far with current food prices). I was a foster kid too and had some horrific experiences, which contributes to some of my mental health issues (and mental health problems already run in my family anyway). In addition to those issues, I have a couple of pretty severe chronic physical illnesses--but to the average person who doesn't know me, I'm able-bodied (since my health problems aren't visible) and I have been called lazy for being on assistance.
I worked really hard to make a life for myself though. For awhile I was going to school full-time while also working full-time as an overnight grocery stocker to pay for school (I had grants and scholarships, but it still wasn't enough to cover everything) and I didn't want to take out a loan. I had a 3.5 GPA. Right after I started my junior year in college my life fell apart. I would love to be able to go back to school and return to work and I hope one day maybe I can. This was not how I wanted my life to turn out. I worked so hard to make something of it. I'd love to not have to use public assistance but sometimes life just happens.
Thank you for sharing your story. I am happy these programs are available for you. My DH is on SSDI also. He appears able bodied to most people too. People still have the mindset that unless you have a cane, walker or are in a wheelchair, you are truly not 'disabled'. And God forbid that you have a tag for your car and get out and 'walk' into the store. Shame. There are many forms of disability. Unless people have walked in your shoes (or my DHs) they have no idea.
I'm always surprised that people consider SS and medicare as a handout. You can't get that unless you've worked and paid into both most of your life - or have been married to someone who died who worked and paid into those. You don't get it otherwise.
What the heck is a "handout", exactly?
There were jobs galore when most of us were growing up. You could support your family whether or not you had a degree of any kind. Health care was affordable, and tax rates really were progressive. The economy was robust, and mental health indicators weren't off the charts like they are now. It really was a different time.
Bears repeating. It is not the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s any longer.
iris lilies
6-20-13, 9:40pm
What the heck is a "handout", exactly?
Ok I'll play:
My definition of handout: government programs to provide food and rent and very basic basic living expenses.
Your def may vary.Don't know that it is useful to define the label since there will be many definitions, but have at it.
iris lilies
6-20-13, 9:41pm
IL, I don't understand your shame comment. Would you be willing to expound a bit more? Thanks!
oh, I think you understand it. you just don't agree, and that is fine.
iris lilies
6-20-13, 9:47pm
Agreed....and I have the (huge) itemized property tax bill, paid receipt and income tax returns to prove that I've paid for a share of those services along with others who pay taxes. Lucky are the people who enjoy those services without paying a penny in property or income tax.
I am okay with paying taxes but I don't like paying taxes for services I never use such as the county library that is 25 miles from my home and I never use when I already pay taxes for a local library 12 miles from my home that I do use or special education programs in an adjoining county.
The special education programs may be mandated by the feds. While I don't know details, I know that regulations require certain things be offered to students of all abilities. Only the feds aren't paying for it, just requiring it. Doncha love that?
As for your library--I am in favor of local taxation for library service. If a small towns wants a small library with small collections and small services--so be it. Let them choose their services. I am not of the mind that all municipalities and jursidictions must have the same level of library service. That extends to all locally provided governmental services: fire, water, education.
Bears repeating. It is not the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s any longer.
If you stack those years against the rest, it wasn't just a different time - I wonder if what many decided was "normal" was actually an anomaly, never happened before and probably never to be repeated again?
oh, I think you understand it. you just don't agree, and that is fine.
I really don't, this isn't a gotcha question. Shame is a complex thing, in my experience, and I think you & I might have a difference of definition.
Maxamillion
6-20-13, 11:14pm
Thank you for sharing your story. I am happy these programs are available for you. My DH is on SSDI also. He appears able bodied to most people too. People still have the mindset that unless you have a cane, walker or are in a wheelchair, you are truly not 'disabled'. And God forbid that you have a tag for your car and get out and 'walk' into the store. Shame. There are many forms of disability. Unless people have walked in your shoes (or my DHs) they have no idea.
So true.
I'm always surprised that people consider SS and medicare as a handout. You can't get that unless you've worked and paid into both most of your life - or have been married to someone who died who worked and paid into those. You don't get it otherwise.
Agreed. I see it more as a combination insurance/retirement program. I paid into the system when I was working and I'm glad it was there when I needed it.
Really, there's no shame in needing assistance. We're all human. We all have our ups and downs, and like I said before, sometimes life just happens and there's nothing you can do about that. When something is out of your control, there should be no shame in that. The real shame is in things like kicking someone when they're down or putting money over people, as is the case when politicians try to make cuts to programs that will result in children going hungry or without healthcare.
gimmethesimplelife
6-20-13, 11:15pm
Bears repeating. It is not the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s any longer.As I have said before, I often don't recognize this country any more. The whole tone of things has shifted - and not in a good direction. Rob
ApatheticNoMore
6-21-13, 3:04am
Bears repeating. It is not the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s any longer
not that I was actually looking for a job for most of those decades, and childhood sheltered me from that reality. All I'll say is yes I'd gladly take back the dot com boom - but then it popped and I was laid off my first professional job a couple years in, after trying so hard to do a good job. Still even after that recession there seemed new businesses starting etc.
Someone taking handouts mostly leaves me overall indifferent 1) I don't know them or their lives or what drives or motivates them (and what motives I would approve of might not be typical) 2) other than old age programs, the amount of money spent on such things is trivial. 3) some people do need the programs, and it's hard to have programs at all without someone somewhere taking advantage of them, the only way to try to stop that is to pile on ever more bureaucracy and policing of the programs (with attendant humiliation) - yea and I definitely don't favor that. 4) I have bigger things to get angry about, really with the whole world going to heck in a handbasket 5) if I hate what I have to do for money (and I really do!), I could get angry at people not having to work for money (I certainly *wish* I didn't have to!), but eliminating a few programs for the poor won't actually solve my problems - so directing the anger there is beyond pointless (in fact for the section of those receiving benefits who actually don't work, pushing them to work might make things worse by flooding the labor market even more).
But not so saintly on #4 what does make me very angry is how I get no family money when only irresponsible (and I really do mean that) family members get everything. Why am I treated like @#$# that way? BECAUSE I'm responsible??? That is really it at the end of the day. Therefore I'm second class.
But I can't solve that. In fact I'd have an easier time changing the government than changing that. It hurts one more than you want it too, when the games played with money becomes so untrivial. But there little I can do ....
But the government handouts, nah that doesn't bother me. It's not personal :)
Maybe we could just shift the popular lexicon from hand-out to hand-up. In the literal sense, who wouldn't stop to offer a hand-up to someone who fell? Not many. Would it help to associate with that more positive image rather than the pervasive image of charity/public dole/insert your own negative that gets tied to assistance? I don't know. Couldn't hurt.
Yes, Gregg, I think ditching language that has any kind of pejorative framing is good. 'Public Assistance' is fine with me. Ties into the shame concept. Shaming someone for needing help is non-productive, IMO.
DH and I have often remarked on our good fortune that we both graduated from post-secondary into well-paying jobs with built in benefits as the years went by into a defined benefit pension with cost of living included.
DH is now deceased way too early due to cancer but our thrifty lifestyle throughout left me well-provided and both our kids are doing well.
The world really has changed dramatically in so many ways.
As more medical personnel graduate and look for jobs, more medical problems are being defined, diagnosed and classified as eligible for assistance and people are living longer. My parents did not have the option of too much medical care so simply coped with their challenges and carried on into their mid-80's.
I always wonder how people "got by" before there was any government assistance. I guess they died younger or had more family to help when times got too rough.
Lots of responses and views. No average it appears.
I always wonder how people "got by" before there was any government assistance. I guess they died younger or had more family to help when times got too rough.
Lifespans are higher now than they've ever been so I think it's fair to say that previous generations died younger, with or without outside assistance. I think the real difference between now and then is that now, we have an expectation of assistance. Not from family & friends, but from government.
For the most part, we've lost that pride of accomplishment that comes from doing for ourselves and caring for our families. The government has usurped the traditional family unit and proponents of that trend have worked overtime to ensure that any stigma associated with the resultant dependency is quashed.
The great majority of my forebears would have absolutely been ashamed to admit they depended upon outside forces, while many of my contemporaries are absolutely not. Sometimes it really does reflect an absence of character to take the easy path and I believe the government, it it's attempts to build a "Great Society", has simply become a "Great Enabler."
ApatheticNoMore
6-21-13, 3:14pm
I think they were mostly pretty poor. Really I think that's it pretty much it entirely. They got by in a poverty that we might not so easily embrace in the modern world.
From what I hear of many prior generations lives (except for the brief prosperous period in the 20th century), I'm not sure why anyone would want to be them. All being immigrants of course they seemed to mostly be fleeing bad economic and political situations - A LOT. There wasn't the expectation of assistence but they fled their home countries in some cases for economic opportunities because of rigid class sytems - so neither was there the expectation that they could make it regardless of social systems wherever they happened to be born.
Maxamillion
6-21-13, 4:51pm
I think the real difference between now and then is that now, we have an expectation of assistance. Not from family & friends, but from government.
When you have no friends or family that are able or willing to help, there's really not much else to turn to. What are people in that situation supposed to do?
The government has usurped the traditional family unit and proponents of that trend have worked overtime to ensure that any stigma associated with the resultant dependency is quashed.
I don't see how the government has usurped the traditional family unit...I see that as more a by-product of our mobile technological society. As far as stigma, as Redfox said, there is no shame in needing assistance. People who are poor and/or disabled already deal with enough stigma as it is.
The great majority of my forebears would have absolutely been ashamed to admit they depended upon outside forces, while many of my contemporaries are absolutely not. Sometimes it really does reflect an absence of character to take the easy path and I believe the government, it it's attempts to build a "Great Society", has simply become a "Great Enabler."
Is it an absence of character to suffer from a disabling illness that is severe enough to keep you from working? And following this same logic, corporations should be ashamed for the government handouts that they get, in the form of tax breaks (that the average working person does not get) and subsidies (which also comes from taxpayer money). Considering how much profit the oil industry brings in, should it really be getting millions in subsidies? How does that even compare to someone getting a few dollars a month in foodstamps.
Maybe we could just shift the popular lexicon from hand-out to hand-up. In the literal sense, who wouldn't stop to offer a hand-up to someone who fell? Not many. Would it help to associate with that more positive image rather than the pervasive image of charity/public dole/insert your own negative that gets tied to assistance? I don't know. Couldn't hurt.
Agreed 100%.
And perhaps if we all redirected our energies to shape our public assistance programs as truly "hand-up", we might actually come up with some solutions that benefit everyone. But that isn't going to happen in the popular debate, which seems hell-bent on characterizing those on assistance programs either as ALL lazy people happy to be enabled by the government, OR all noble people who have ALL tried as hard as they could to help themselves first. In fact, most of them are neither, but it's way more fun to pigeonhole them to advance our own political argument, isn't it?
Public assistance with rather stiff requirements, with an educational component that helps them UP to become more valuable citizens rather than helping them stay down, and with good oversight to minimize abuse of the system? If we were all focused on creating this reality instead of focusing on dubious judgment calls about each other's merit, no telling what we could create. But it will not happen in my lifetime, sadly, and not because the details are difficult to hammer out, but because we couldn't possibly stoop to working together to create it. Nobody wants to lose the argument by cooperating on something as boring as a real solution.
I have read enough history as a general interest (not about wars however so don't ask me about that) to realize what we have had in the last 50-100 years is not common. One thing that I recall is when in England they went from common grazing land to enclosures that were owned and how many people went from doing just fine to really not okay. The more wealthy were able to do that, I can't recall the years it happened since I don't memorize well. Then there was the situation leading to the French revolution and all of Europe during the world wars. People starved, people died, it was a bad thing. Even the original whites who came to North America starved and died of disease.
If I had a serious illness like cancer that could kill me and chose not to treat it due to acceptance and finances then I imagine I would be deemed suicidal and probably put into a system that would judge me for that and push expensive treatment. If I chose to live in certain conditions because that was all I could afford I imagine I could have my children taken and raised by people willing to go into debt. No real judgement that I can make but an observation.
INHO Previous generations got a HUGE handout : Land. Anyone(well almost). That gave anyone who was willing to work a hand up. That is in my opinion what made our forbears "absolutely ashamed if they accepted handouts" they had already gotten it.
ApatheticNoMore
6-21-13, 8:29pm
But it will not happen in my lifetime, sadly, and not because the details are difficult to hammer out, but because we couldn't possibly stoop to working together to create it. Nobody wants to lose the argument by cooperating on something as boring as a real solution.
I'm not sure a real solution isn't possible because people keep arguing but rather because the economic system seems to inevitably result in some people in low wage jobs and increasingly in some people unemployed. And by the way *IF* the economic system seems to inevitably produce that you can hardly blame some people for ending up on benefits. Because even if some people taking benefits are not legit - they're abusing the system one might say, *IF* the economic system inevitably produces some amount of low wages (by which I mean too low to pay basic necessities like medical care) and unemployment then it logically follows that some of the poeple collecting aid will be legit - they will be nothing more nor less than the result of this. Yes in some cases one could turn to family first if you were one of these people, or of course if you were too sick to work - but as mentioned that doesn't work for everyone.
So I'm not sure what a solution WITHOUT subsidies would even look like. In the past even conservatives didn't argue you could have a system with no subsidy, they just wanted to subsidies that didn't discourage work is all (see Milton Freidman). You can try to poach jobs from the global job market by trying to produce reasons to hire people here. Education might be one of those. But even then noone seriously believes that enough education will mean no more low wage workers who might need help to pay their medical care etc.. So what would a real solution even look like? Higher wages and better benefits even at the low wage jobs? That would solve the people going on assistance because their wages don't cover the basic cost of living but it wouldn't solve unemployment. Wage sharing to spread work around to help with unemployment? I like it, not sure how it works in a more global economy though.
characterizing those on assistance programs either as ALL lazy people happy to be enabled by the government, OR all noble people who have ALL tried as hard as they could to help themselves first. In fact, most of them are neither, but it's way more fun to pigeonhole them to advance our own political argument, isn't it?
I dont' generalize about them (and if we're going to generalize we could at least try to be rational about it - use statistics and so on - and all the while remembering even the best argued generalizations can never account for every individual case). I find arguments that they are all noble or all lazy hard to believe on the face of it. Now I'm not sure how a *single individual* could be both lazy and trying to help themselves - although I see how one could choose aid even if they had options, if the options were bad enough.
INHO Previous generations got a HUGE handout : Land. Anyone(well almost). That gave anyone who was willing to work a hand up. That is in my opinion what made our forbears "absolutely ashamed if they accepted handouts" they had already gotten it.
Yea I can't make the comparison with previous generations either as their circumstances were so different. For instance they got over here, not even born into this country, walked into college and were admitted that day, and got a PhD, without debt. How's that happen? Plus they inherited a home from an older relative, so never had a mortgage. How does that happen? They definitely believed in hard work (the most serious of believers - but it was for the virtue of it see, NOT for the material results). So at the same time never thought they were uniquely special and hardworking to have suceeded.
When you have no friends or family that are able or willing to help, there's really not much else to turn to. What are people in that situation supposed to do?
... As far as stigma, as Redfox said, there is no shame in needing assistance. People who are poor and/or disabled already deal with enough stigma as it is.
Is it an absence of character to suffer from a disabling illness that is severe enough to keep you from working? And following this same logic, corporations should be ashamed for the government handouts that they get, in the form of tax breaks (that the average working person does not get) and subsidies (which also comes from taxpayer money). Considering how much profit the oil industry brings in, should it really be getting millions in subsidies? How does that even compare to someone getting a few dollars a month in foodstamps.
You just go to the poorhouse, like my great-great grandmother did. And later to the asylum, where the general public could come by and stare at you on weekends. Talk about shame.
And I'm with you as far as all the shame being distributed among the poor--the banksters are still grifting the system and feeling no shame at all.
iris lilies
6-22-13, 12:41am
You just go to the poorhouse, like my great-great grandmother did. And later to the asylum, where the general public could come by and stare at you on weekends. Talk about shame.
And I'm with you as far as all the shame being distributed among the poor--the banksters are still grifting the system and feeling no shame at all.
Well, since you bring that up, my great great grandfather died in the Jones Co. Iowa poorhouse and why, we don't know exactly, but I suspect drink. His wife and children were living years before that in a barn and it caught fire and she threw the kids out and died herself in the fire. Why was she living in a barn? Where was he in all of this? Again, I suspect drink--the family is mum about it. This isn't family heritage to be proud of, then or now. A little shame about not taking care of your children' isn't a bad thing.
flowerseverywhere
6-22-13, 2:05am
I don't think we have gotten very far in this discussion. But I do know that there is a predictable pattern that I see in history as well as I have experienced in my own life. I have met many mean People and many kind people in my life. The biggest block of unkind people are upper class, especially white males. My own father in law never liked me, I was from the wrong side of the tracks and too dark skinned. At least my mil was kind and as the years went by we became quite close and she appreciated what a good mother and wife I tried to be. I have this totally unscientific and unproven theory that the world is run by white rich men and they will do anything to keep that power.
But I guess I have a different view of life, starting so poor and working my life in mental health. Seeing the bottom of societies barrel struggle to live and make a decent life and care for their families thebestthey can. I Can't imagine how it must be to look around you and feel so little caring for those who have been less fortunate.
Well, since you bring that up, my great great grandfather died in the Jones Co. Iowa poorhouse and why, we don't know exactly, but I suspect drink. His wife and children were living years before that in a barn and it caught fire and she threw the kids out and died herself in the fire. Why was she living in a barn? Where was he in all of this? Again, I suspect drink--the family is mum about it. This isn't family heritage to be proud of, then or now. A little shame about not taking care of your children' isn't a bad thing.
We have "secret stories" in our family, too--I learned recently that my great-grandfather died in a poorhouse/asylum in upstate NY (Willard). His wife and family wound up with relatives (in-laws). I try to imagine what his life was like there--I've found some evidence that he may have had an eccentric personality, and almost certainly alcoholic. My relatives have kept this info under the rug, but we're having a family mini-reunion at the end of the month and I'm going to ask my aunts to tell me more. Not sure what is gained by keeping skeletons in the closet.
But for sure, I fell very bad for this lost soul, and I would definitely be more supportive of current-style "handouts" to warehousing human lives.
My father in law was indentured out to a farm in the early 1900s because his parents could not feed all the kids. His early life stunted his growth. He had to stop school in the 9th grade and work on the farm. Life was hard.
I don't think we have gotten very far in this discussion. But I do know that there is a predictable pattern that I see in history as well as I have experienced in my own life. I have met many mean People and many kind people in my life. The biggest block of unkind people are upper class, especially white males. My own father in law never liked me, I was from the wrong side of the tracks and too dark skinned. At least my mil was kind and as the years went by we became quite close and she appreciated what a good mother and wife I tried to be. I have this totally unscientific and unproven theory that the world is run by white rich men and they will do anything to keep that power.
But I guess I have a different view of life, starting so poor and working my life in mental health. Seeing the bottom of societies barrel struggle to live and make a decent life and care for their families thebestthey can. I Can't imagine how it must be to look around you and feel so little caring for those who have been less fortunate.
So your saying that your father in law didn't care for you because you were dark skinned and you are prejudiced against white's, especially males.
Well, since you bring that up, my great great grandfather died in the Jones Co. Iowa poorhouse and why, we don't know exactly, but I suspect drink. His wife and children were living years before that in a barn and it caught fire and she threw the kids out and died herself in the fire. Why was she living in a barn? Where was he in all of this? Again, I suspect drink--the family is mum about it. This isn't family heritage to be proud of, then or now. A little shame about not taking care of your children' isn't a bad thing.
I suspect depression--starting with post-partum depression--not really anything to be ashamed of.
Too bad you can't know for sure--it beats looking down on the guy for something he couldn't help.
iris lily
6-22-13, 12:24pm
I suspect depression--starting with post-partum depression--not really anything to be ashamed of.
Too bad you can't know for sure--it beats looking down on the guy for something he couldn't help.
You may be right. Tales of drinking usually come down in family lore and there is no such lore, and the great-grandfather and grandfather weren't drinkers. But the story about the fire and barn were not related by the tight lipped elders, either--that came from a non-relative who claimed to have read it in a small parish newspaper. We've never been able to find that story in print and it's not for lack of trying.
But in the end I respect that g-grandfather for being the one who had the get up and go to come to America. He was our Immigrant ancestor and for that I will always be grateful, he took that risk.
Not to mention he wouldn't be drinking if he were in the asylum, so wouldn't they let him out?
If you are in your 50s looking for work now, you know just how bad it is out there. Everyone from no college degree to those with masters degrees in that age group are struggling to find jobs.........Add in physical limitations in your 50s....(yes it happens to almost everyone...few escape it).....and its not a pretty picture. What happens when all these people run out of money? I dont know.
I hear you. At 58 I'm nobody's first choice for a job. A lady my age applied for an ordinary office job. When she called to follow up they told her they were receiving 60 applications A DAY for the one position. She didn't get it.
iris lilies
6-22-13, 6:40pm
Not to mention he wouldn't be drinking if he were in the asylum, so wouldn't they let him out?
I don't think it was an asylum, the county poorhouse was the workhouse where destitute people went.
flowerseverywhere
6-22-13, 8:32pm
So your saying that your father in law didn't care for you because you were dark skinned and you are prejudiced against white's, especially males.
No, I am only saying that this group has been the least kind to me as I have gone through life. After how I have been treated I make it a point to try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and treat people as kindly as I can.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
"I've been on welfare and food stamps, did anybody ever help me out, no."
Craig T. Nelson
I think we all get help in one form or another in this American society and we don't even realize it.
What's wrong with candy?? Nope maybe twice bought my kids candy in check out line with our hard earned money. They would not ask. Guess for her it was someone else's money?
Nope guess I have not seen many starving people(yes there are some, but not the ones buying candy). I still count each dollar spent on food, though I don't have too. I guess grabbing a handful of $1 candy bars was not counting to me?
Would I buy someone else's kids candy? Nope, but I buy extra bananas everything I go to the grocery store to give the man begging outside. Figure it is better then money for drugs.
But we all think very different.
To me EBT isn't someone else's money. It's my entire grocery budget. (Though it's described as a supplement). If I choose to buy chicken instead of beef and spend the difference on a candy bar that's my decision and of no concern to anyone else.
To me EBT isn't someone else's money. It's my entire grocery budget. (Though it's described as a supplement). If I choose to buy chicken instead of beef and spend the difference on a candy bar that's my decision and of no concern to anyone else.
Agreed. There is no reason to remove the simple dignity of being able to make a choice from an already stressful situation. If someone is upset about the choices other people make with their EBT cards it would make a lot more sense to address it by making sure those folks have more and better choices rather than to condemn them for the choices they do make.
ApatheticNoMore
6-23-13, 10:58pm
To me EBT isn't someone else's money. It's my entire grocery budget. (Though it's described as a supplement). If I choose to buy chicken instead of beef and spend the difference on a candy bar that's my decision and of no concern to anyone else.
It's patronizing, treating adult human beings like little children (and really maybe even little children shouldn't be treated that way!) just because they take government help (and this is so irregardless of whether some people abuse the system - yea so universally degrade people taking help, who in many cases have never known anything but poverty, because *some* people abuse the system ....).
So noone's candy bar disturbs me (and I don't care if it's a kitkat or a sneakers or ... :)). But that said I was a bit shocked initially when I saw that pizza places accept EBT cards, because that's not just junky food, it's eating out and thus it's very expensive for what you get (you can spend a $20 at pizza hut like it's nothing). I didn't realize EBT was for restaurants (though for most people there is a case for using them sometimes). It was also shocking because after the crash of 2008, EBT signs started appearing REALLY prominently on the pizza places, etc.. Something I did not take as even kinda a good sign about the economy.
goldensmom
6-24-13, 5:56am
Regarding public assistance specifically, I know people who’ve used the programs as temporary help (which is the original intended use, stated so I policy) and I’ve known those whose use it as a generational lifestyle. While interviewing a child one time I asked the traditional question, ‘what do you want to be/do when you grow up?’. I received a blank star. Rewording the question, ‘what would you like to do to earn money and pay your bills?’ Answer, ‘oh, money comes in the mail’ (this conversation took place before EBT when ADC and food stamps were delivered by USPS). He had no example to follow concerning employment as his mom, dad, grandparents, aunts, uncles were not employed and received some sort of public assistance. Assistance when needed is acceptable and understandable but as a generational lifestyle, it is not.
The "generational lifestyle" is a myth. What you are calling a lifestyle is in fact persistent poverty, not a choice, as the language implies. The question is, how do we as a nation address persistent poverty structurally?
goldensmom
6-24-13, 12:41pm
The "generational lifestyle" is a myth. What you are calling a lifestyle is in fact persistent poverty, not a choice, as the language implies. The question is, how do we as a nation address persistent poverty structurally?
Redfox, I respectfully disagree with your statement that generational lifestyle is a myth because I’ve seen it first hand. I worked in the field for 30+ years and saw many instances of public assistance being a generational lifestyle. I also saw instances where an individual made different choices than previous generations and broke the cycle. Again, my statement is based on many years of observational experience, therefore, I contend that the term 'generational lifestyle' is not a myth.
Is it correct for me to understand that you think poverty is a choice?
ApatheticNoMore
6-24-13, 2:14pm
When I hear the example of little kids who have no other concept of where money comes from but in the mail, it doesn't seem to me that it being a choice is what is being argued.
I do think its a good point that if someone has never been shown other options almost anything can become "normal". That said, I'm guessing there are very few people who would choose poverty if other options were present. It seems counterproductive to hold up the very few shining examples of someone who broke the cycle while millions of others remained behind. I don't feel so special compared to a couple of the very highest achievers that came from my background. We need to provide opportunity for average folks to discover their talents and then engage them in some meaningful way. IMO, until we can do that we'll just remain caught in the feedback loop.
goldensmom
6-24-13, 2:45pm
Is it correct for me to understand that you think poverty is a choice?
Redfox, although you did not quote my comment in your post, I am going to assume that your comment is in response to my previous post. My answer to your question “Is it correct for me to understand that you think poverty is a choice? is no. I am speaking from what I have observed from my work experience.
***Additionally: Upon further thought, I do know of several people who have chosen to take a vow of poverty or chosen to live within the system whereby they subsist on governmental benefits when other options are available but for the majority of people worldwide who live below the government established poverty level my answer is still ‘no’.
goldensmom
6-24-13, 2:47pm
I do think its a good point that if someone has never been shown other options almost anything can become "normal".
Excellent point.
That said, I'm guessing there are very few people who would choose poverty if other options were present.....
I don't know about that. There are several members of my extended family who have voluntarily chosen the path of least resistance.
To twist the question a bit, why do so many of us "choose" to be middle class instead of choosing to be rich?
To twist the question a bit, why do so many of us "choose" to be middle class instead of choosing to be rich?
I would suggest a Ruby Payne book that is excellent on issues of poverty in educational settings. (A Framework for Understanding Poverty) It really gets into the larger set of values and assumptions with different socio-economic groups. I found it very enlightening and based on good research instead of assumptions. And then I got to know a young man who grew up in a poverty lifestyle family even though money did come in frequently, his way of dealing with money and work was totally different than mine. I probably had a lower overall income many times but with a middle class way of viewing the world. Now I look at people not just from an income point of view but also the values that indicate poverty, working class, middle class and wealthy.
So many of the families I work with are low income and we have grant money to subsidize child care before and after school. The majority of my families have the middle class mind set I would guess, but a few seem to have values more of a poverty mentality. In poverty often relationships are valued above financial planning. When money comes in it is more likely to be spent on entertainment as part of those relationships. The relationships are more essential to survival than a savings account or planning that they have no experience with. I am watching my own daughter who is on the cusp of these 2 ways of dealing with the world. Most of her friends from high school are from poverty while both her parents, all grandparents, etc are solidly middle class. She has a savings account yet over and over values these relationships that are unsupportive. It is a constant running around to pay a bill or help someone. Her boyfriend is not sure they can get their own apartment because he is on a utility bill for one friend across town, and is on a car loan for his mom, etc. I was taught that the best thing I could do for my parents was to be self sufficient, then if the sh** hit the fan there would be more resources to take care of each other.
One thing I valued about this book was showing how each economic group has a set of skills, for poverty it may be how to move in 24 hours due to eviction, middle class saving for big purchases, and wealthy maintaining boundaries with people who may want to profit from you.
poetry_writer
6-24-13, 3:46pm
I would suggest a Ruby Payne book that is excellent on issues of poverty in educational settings. (A Framework for Understanding Poverty) It really gets into the larger set of values and assumptions with different socio-economic groups. I found it very enlightening and based on good research instead of assumptions. And then I got to know a young man who grew up in a poverty lifestyle family even though money did come in frequently, his way of dealing with money and work was totally different than mine. I probably had a lower overall income many times but with a middle class way of viewing the world. Now I look at people not just from an income point of view but also the values that indicate poverty, working class, middle class and wealthy.
So many of the families I work with are low income and we have grant money to subsidize child care before and after school. The majority of my families have the middle class mind set I would guess, but a few seem to have values more of a poverty mentality. In poverty often relationships are valued above financial planning. When money comes in it is more likely to be spent on entertainment as part of those relationships. The relationships are more essential to survival than a savings account or planning that they have no experience with. I am watching my own daughter who is on the cusp of these 2 ways of dealing with the world. Most of her friends from high school are from poverty while both her parents, all grandparents, etc are solidly middle class. She has a savings account yet over and over values these relationships that are unsupportive. It is a constant running around to pay a bill or help someone. Her boyfriend is not sure they can get their own apartment because he is on a utility bill for one friend across town, and is on a car loan for his mom, etc. I was taught that the best thing I could do for my parents was to be self sufficient, then if the sh** hit the fan there would be more resources to take care of each other.
One thing I valued about this book was showing how each economic group has a set of skills, for poverty it may be how to move in 24 hours due to eviction, middle class saving for big purchases, and wealthy maintaining boundaries with people who may want to profit from you.
I agree and very well said. My relatives work for the giant retail discount store..... Two working parents, two kids and barely scraping by.....gets very old. Money can sometimes be spent on entertainment of some sort instead of being saved because they have to do so to maintain their sanity. They smoke.....(yes, its bad)....So do many of the employees there...It just ceases to be a worry when your entire life is lived on the edge and smoking helps sooth their nerves at break time!. Their working conditions are horrendous. People say OH go back to school. Right. And who would pay the bills and keep the baby while they did? Not that a degree would promise a job these days. (They do not qualify for any govt assistance of any kind). In times past they'd be called middle class. Now they are the working poor. And poor they are......
ApatheticNoMore
6-24-13, 3:49pm
I know people who have chosen to try to make a difference in the world, or do work they felt drawn to, as opposed to money making, and yes it DOES seem to me like a straight up vow of poverty in it's consequences. But when a person has a middle class (sometimes better) background and boatloads of education credentials and makes that choice, I don't doubt it's a choice. And I respect it. Someone who has never known anything but poverty OTOH, I'm not so sure it's a choice at all.
To twist the question a bit, why do so many of us "choose" to be middle class instead of choosing to be rich?
actually same answer, we wouldn't have a clue on how to be rich if we wanted to! I do often question why I haven't the wherewithall to choose that vow of poverty though. Well .... I just don't. Poverty in america is an very ugly thing.
ApatheticNoMore
6-24-13, 3:56pm
In poverty often relationships are valued above financial planning. When money comes in it is more likely to be spent on entertainment as part of those relationships. The relationships are more essential to survival than a savings account or planning that they have no experience with. I am watching my own daughter who is on the cusp of these 2 ways of dealing with the world. Most of her friends from high school are from poverty while both her parents, all grandparents, etc are solidly middle class. She has a savings account yet over and over values these relationships that are unsupportive. It is a constant running around to pay a bill or help someone. Her boyfriend is not sure they can get their own apartment because he is on a utility bill for one friend across town, and is on a car loan for his mom, etc. I was taught that the best thing I could do for my parents was to be self sufficient, then if the sh** hit the fan there would be more resources to take care of each other.
Obviously you shouldn't help unsupportive people in endless one way relationships (that's just being used) but in general I have to say if these are what poverty values and middle class values consist of, IMO the poverty values are a preferable value system.
jennipurrr
6-24-13, 4:15pm
One thing I valued about this book was showing how each economic group has a set of skills, for poverty it may be how to move in 24 hours due to eviction, middle class saving for big purchases, and wealthy maintaining boundaries with people who may want to profit from you.
Thanks for jogging my memory! I read this book years ago and wanted to mention it recently and had completely forgotten the name. It does have its share of detractors in the academic community, but I think it is a great, practical resource.
It helped me have an aha moment about some of my my MIL's family does. There is a lot of generational poverty there and some things which originally seemed like a personal affront to me I have been able to over the years just let them roll off.
Redfox, although you did not quote my comment in your post, I am going to assume that your comment is in response to my previous post. My answer to your question “Is it correct for me to understand that you think poverty is a choice? is no. I am speaking from what I have observed from my work experience.
***Additionally: Upon further thought, I do know of several people who have chosen to take a vow of poverty or chosen to live within the system whereby they subsist on governmental benefits when other options are available but for the majority of people worldwide who live below the government established poverty level my answer is still ‘no’.
Yes, sorry, I was asking you. I have been wondering if I have been misunderstanding you due to my beliefs about the language you used. I often find that I misunderstand someone!
I ask because to me, the word 'lifestyle' means how one chooses to live. I read your comments about lifestyle to mean chosen poverty. (Those with philosophical stances are the obvious yes to chosen poverty.) Now I see that you don't equate 'lifestyle' with choice. Thank you!
jennipurrr
6-24-13, 4:26pm
Obviously you shouldn't help unsupportive people in endless one way relationships (that's just being used) but in general I have to say if these are what poverty values and middle class values consist of, IMO the poverty values are a preferable value system.
This is one of things with MILs side of the family that was so so so foreign to me. It is really about the lack value in planning and the scarcity of resources in those with generational poverty. I can't see it as preferable to a middle class values, but maybe that is my middle class bias showing. From the outside, it feels like constant draining on anyone with resources. Oh, MIL just bought a new big screen/spent $200 at the bar/quit her job because she didn't get along with the manager/insert seemingly poor life decision here...so can she borrow $1000? In families/communities in generational poverty so rarely does money come along that when someone gets it they do share with everyone because of its scarcity. So, now DH has escaped that lifestyle and he is still thought of as the piggy bank.
In my middle class family it seems that we were raised to value independence and so when it was a time when I wasn't making much money I cut things to the bare bones before asking from help from family. I think that is a pretty common middle class value. My family would help each other in times of need, but you were expected to do the best you could planning for the future before you asked for any assistance.
I had not thought a lot about long term planning being a middle/upper class value until I read that marriage study a couple years ago. I thought "everyone" valued planning but not every one followed through.
Planning is a learned skill, and being able to use it effectively is also dependent upon emotional intelligence, IMO. I have struggled with both of these, and have assiduously learned them by intention, as an adult, finally! I spent many years in super reactivity mode, having no financial literacy or confidence in my ability to be capable in the world. Got myself into huge debt. Both of these deficits were learned in my family of origin. I have had to overcome them, and it has been HARD. Now, at 58, I have both the internal confidence most of the time, and basic financial skills to be reasonably self-sufficient. I am still paying off debt, and will be till I die. However, I am more confident that I can take financial care of myself. I got to this point in my mid-50's. Better late than never.
I come from a middle class, educated family. However, my family of origin was, and is, crippled by the anxiety & self-doubt on the part of my father, who took it out on all of us. I grew up having no solid sense of self, and relied on my extroversion to get by. He was verbally abusive to my mother, and repeatedly communicated the message to the kids that we would never be good enough. As a child of the 1950's, I was in college before I understood that I was not going to marry & be supported! It never occurred to me, nor did anyone tell me, that I would be responsible for being self-supporting. He recently apologized to us for not teaching financial literacy (my phrase). He said he assumed that the schools were doing this. Hah!
I have been able to have a so-called middle class "lifestyle" due to luck & financial help from family & partners. I have chosen this lifestyle and am working to maintain it, but I am conceptually clear that it could fall apart too. I have none of the private safety nets, like robust savings, a pension, retirement plan, etc. If Ihad to live in poverty, I could, but it feels very scary to me.
I wonder, beyond personal choices, what the structural, system-wide constraints are, as these are the waters we all swim in. I am most interested in engaging in systemic change, to affect the economic structures which allow poverty to remain a daily reality for too many. I believe that economics and our social structures exist to serve the well-being of us all, not the current structures which apparently serve the well-being of only a few.
jennipurrr
6-24-13, 4:46pm
[QUOTE=redfox;146328]Planning is a learned skill, and being able to use it effectively is also dependent upon emotional intelligence, IMO. [QUOTE]
I agree with that...maybe "value" wasn't the best word, although I think that is the word used in the book and the marriage study. It was definitely not taught to my DH whereas it was ingrained in me as an important tool at an early age.
iris lilies
6-24-13, 5:14pm
I would suggest a Ruby Payne book that is excellent on issues of poverty in educational settings. (A Framework for Understanding Poverty) It really gets into the larger set of values and assumptions with different socio-economic groups. I found it very enlightening and based on good research instead of assumptions. And then I got to know a young man who grew up in a poverty lifestyle family even though money did come in frequently, his way of dealing with money and work was totally different than mine. I probably had a lower overall income many times but with a middle class way of viewing the world. Now I look at people not just from an income point of view but also the values that indicate poverty, working class, middle class and wealthy.
I recommended that book A Framework for Understanding Poverty here on this the Simple Living boards multiple times starting a dozen years ago. Although the book does have its detractors, I found it useful, especially that list of 20 skills people in poverty have that middle class people do not (for the most part) have including that one you mention "do you know how to move in one day?" It's a different culture. It's about different values.
I would honor the "different values" thing but for the fact that those values lead to generational poverty. No shame in bringing babies into the world with no visible means of support. No serious involvement of dads (kids need dads, good dads--not just guys who pay the bills.) Buying tennis shoes over saving those bucks. All of those values cost me something in taxes because they don't lead to stable home and child support and Nanny G has to cover that.
But that said, the poor with always be with us. Some of those core values* are attractive and will always be attracting a new group even if we could miraculously lift 100% of the old group out of poverty.
*values such as let The Man worry about tomorrow, scam as much money from The Man as possible because he is a chump to put on a suit every day and go to work, sit back and relax on the stoop in the sun today and blow off that leaf raking job because it's natural and good to do what you feel like doing, etc. etc.
iris lilies
6-24-13, 5:27pm
To twist the question a bit, why do so many of us "choose" to be middle class instead of choosing to be rich?
It's a deliberate choice on my part. Yes, a choice. I chose not to develop any skills that would put me far ahead of the pack in academia or business or fame. Not that I have any obvious talents in any of those--I don't. But I consciously chose a balanced life, one of low risk (those who get rich take a lot of risks.) After doing the hard work of self-analysis in young adult hood, I consciously made choices that supported a life that would make me happiest. I pretty much live my values, I embrace certain things that give me joy.
I believe that many in poverty make those same kinds of choices, hourly, daily weekly, annually--to get them where they are.
I'll also retire with a nice net worth and while embracing simple living and frugality formed the foundation of that, the fact that the stock market hasn't crashed beyond redemption in 25 years helps me there. I made choices to save money but being in America (where everyone has the same access to the same investment vehicles) allows me to be near rich by US standards and obscenely wealthy by world standards.
iris lilies
6-24-13, 5:38pm
.... As a child of the 1950's, I was in college before I understood that I was not going to marry & be supported! It never occurred to me, nor did anyone tell me, that I would be responsible for being self-supporting.
I am your age and it never occurred to me to go to college to get a man to support me. I have to ask, where WERE you in the 70's? You know, the time of Ms magazine and Gloria Steinham? And if you say "in the Midwest" well honey, so was I. In a small town. In Iowa. I managed to get the message.
But then I had a couple of advantages: 1) an inate horror of babies which lead me to question getting married at all and 2) a passion for all things British which led me to scheme, from the time I was 11 years old, how I could get out of Iowa to the wider world 3) voracious reader who read or skimmed the feminist bibles as well as anything else I could get my hands on. I would have felt smothered staying in that town in Iowa and having kids and getting married. I wanted adventure, but in a quiet and safe way.
I am your age and it never occurred to me to go to college to get a man to support me. I have to ask, where WERE you in the 70's? You know, the time of Ms magazine and Gloria Steinham? And if you say "in the Midwest" well honey, so was I. In a small town. In Iowa. I managed to get the message.
But then I had a couple of advantages: 1) an inate horror of babies which lead me to question getting married at all and 2) a passion for all things British which led me to scheme, from the time I was 11 years old, how I could get out of Iowa to the wider world 3) voracious reader who read or skimmed the feminist bibles as well as anything else I could get my hands on. I would have felt smothered staying in that town in Iowa and having kids and getting married. I wanted adventure, but in a quiet and safe way.
Well, I went to a women's college, so no, I was not there to find a husband! I was an active feminist, but I realized years later that I had absorbed the 'be in an emotionally & financially dependent relationship over all other life goals' message based upon looking at my life patterns. My feminism was highly intellectual, and didn't touch my deeply held programming. That took years & years & lots of therapy to undo. Still at that.
This meant that even though I was lesbian identified at the age of 21, I was still operating from the traditional framework of marriage & financial dependency. So, of course, when I left what would have been my first marriage if marriage equality had been in place then, after dedicating years to her farm, and co-partnering in her adoption of our daughter, I lost it all. No financial settlement, no shared custody or visitation, NADA. In fact, I consequently went on public assistance to get by for the first year.
My family of origin patterning, my lack of self-confidence, emotional intelligence, and complete lack of financial literacy means that in virtually every life decision I have made, money never entered into the decision. This includes taking out student loans, getting credit, and buying a house. I often still approach finances with panic & emotion, but am working on mastering that. Frankly, I have been pretty personally terrified of money, finances, being poor & without (my prejudice about being poor here), and of never "getting it".
This decade, as I entered my 50's, I finally started thinking about finances as a basis for evaluating decisions. I now understand both the math & the need for financial health. The emotional part still trips me up, but I have a very supportive husband who is not emotional about money. He has taught me a lot, and he grew up poor. I am where I am, will never have much money, and have worked on re-framing my circumstances. I no longer beat myself up, or feel the shame that froze me for many years. (I do not believe shame is a positive emotion in any other circumstance that transient. If it is chronic, I think it is disabling.)
Looking back on it all, and on my siblings' different but nonetheless distorted financial lives, I can see how my family of origin set very destructive patterns for us all, however inadvertently. All I can do is understand myself, and move forward.
. All I can do is understand myself, and move forward.
"All"?
That's the whole secret :-) If you can pull that off, you are ahead of the game!
"All"?
That's the whole secret :-) If you can pull that off, you are ahead of the game!
Wow, thanks for the encouragement. I do have a relentless self-investigatory streak. I want to know why what I have done hasn't worked as I had hoped it would, how to change it, and refuse to leave it to chance. Life is always interesting!
Don't feel bad, Redfox, I was completely clueless getting out of college. My parents were even more clueless; my Mother had some timely advice about marrying the president of the bank instead of the cuspidor cleaner. Like Iris Lily, I was sure I didn't want to be a parent, and I didn't want to hang my future on getting married (good thing!), so it was providential that a job opened up and I fell into it.
catherine
6-24-13, 10:13pm
Looking back on it all, and on my siblings' different but nonetheless distorted financial lives, I can see how my family of origin set very destructive patterns for us all, however inadvertently. All I can do is understand myself, and move forward.
I hear you, redfox. I amaze myself at how I think I'm pretty smart, and I think I have a lot of common sense, and somehow I drastically blew it in the financial arena. Today, we just closed on MIL's house. Gain on the house: $4,284. My out of pocket cost on the house from '07 to '13: $194,000. I think about how my mother made unwise decisions and I would silently say "That's not me." But maybe it was. I think a lot is carried down through the parents about attitudes about money.
Yet, my great-uncle used to say, "money is just a means of exchange" and I truly believe that. And I look forward to a time when perhaps it's not the ONLY means of exchange. I am so interested in the works of people who are advocating the Gift Economy, and I see so much potential there for restoration of a sustainable, sane way of life for all of us and for the environment.
It's a deliberate choice on my part. Yes, a choice. I chose not to develop any skills that would put me far ahead of the pack in academia or business or fame. Not that I have any obvious talents in any of those--I don't. But I consciously chose a balanced life, one of low risk (those who get rich take a lot of risks.) After doing the hard work of self-analysis in young adult hood, I consciously made choices that supported a life that would make me happiest. I pretty much live my values, I embrace certain things that give me joy.
I believe that many in poverty make those same kinds of choices, hourly, daily weekly, annually--to get them where they are.
Just as a child of a rich person perhaps wouldn't consider making decisions to take risks to make boatloads of money to be excessively risky, whereas you do, perhaps your low risk lifestyle of making decisions that will insure your solidly middle-classness would be considered risky by someone raised in generational poverty. The rich kid has learned how to effectively be a rich person on his own, and you learned in your youth how to be an effective middle class person. The poor person learned how to be an effective poor person (sharing what he has and trusting that others in his circle will share with him when the positions are reversed). Perhaps if they did they hard work of self-analysis they'd decide that becoming middle-class was worth the risk. Or perhaps not since they'd likely lose their poor people support network in the process of trying to move up to middle-class and then if they failed they'd be worse off than they would've been had they just accepted their generational poverty.
iris lilies
6-24-13, 11:25pm
Just as a child of a rich person perhaps wouldn't consider making decisions to take risks to make boatloads of money to be excessively risky, whereas you do, perhaps your low risk lifestyle of making decisions that will insure your solidly middle-classness would be considered risky by someone raised in generational poverty. The rich kid has learned how to effectively be a rich person on his own, and you learned in your youth how to be an effective middle class person. The poor person learned how to be an effective poor person (sharing what he has and trusting that others in his circle will share with him when the positions are reversed). Perhaps if they did they hard work of self-analysis they'd decide that becoming middle-class was worth the risk. Or perhaps not since they'd likely lose their poor people support network in the process of trying to move up to middle-class and then if they failed they'd be worse off than they would've been had they just accepted their generational poverty.
Oh, agreed! I DID take risks that we are told those in poverty will not take: "bettering" themselves through education, up and leaving the home place/the home city/the home state and moving to places where I knew no one chasing a career. Those were very much "risks" that are encouraged in my culture. They are choices with consequences.
ApatheticNoMore
6-24-13, 11:43pm
I am so interested in the works of people who are advocating the Gift Economy, and I see so much potential there for restoration of a sustainable, sane way of life for all of us and for the environment.
that's basically what the description of the poverty values several posts ago sounded like to me - a gift economy of sorts.
Perhaps if they did they hard work of self-analysis they'd decide that becoming middle-class was worth the risk.
self-analysis might be necessary, but it wouldn't be enough, they'd need to do some social analysis, think about how one might really "get ahead" in this society. Because people who just blindly follow rules that suffuse the social atmosphere, often end up eventually complaining: "but I did everything I was supposed to!", got a degree, still can't get a decent job, have debt etc.. Because belief systems that randomly suffuse the culture are often if not entirely lies (on average you will earn more with more education etc.), not the whole truth either. And I suspect the same types of myths that surround college also surround things like starting a business. Ha, speaking of cultural myths, much of the culture will still tell people that the secret to getting ahead is hard work, when everyone but those with little experience of the world knows that's not enough - you can work extraordinarily hard in a super low paying job and never get much of anywhere.
It's interesting, your thoughts there, Iris Lily.
What Dh and I looked at before our great big risky move (and I see it that way!) is that we saw that we had two options: 1. stay as we were, more or less, and with continued work in stable jobs (I would work a stable job as well, once DS was in school), we could live a comfortable, very basic middle-class life. A good life. There's nothing at all wrong with this life.
But we decided to take the risk and try for what we wanted, because we knew that we could always fall back on that life. DH and I could go back to work, get a comfortable income, and inch our way toward retirement and do ok. Or, we could take the risks!
Our behavior is highly risky, and sometimes I make risks that give me a shiver, but apparently are "no big deal" to my mentors -- all very wealthy people with very successful businesses. Right now, we're talking about how to get us to the next level of financial sustainability -- which is an exciting point -- and a point where I have an actual exit strategy. Listening to my mentors, that process can take most small businesses about 6-8 years, but I'd like to accomplish it in the next year or two (which would put me at 4-5 years). I push myself -- and to an extent, that means more risks. Some of them are harder on me than others.
My parents also took risks -- to move from poverty and lower middle to higher middle class -- as you said the risks of getting an education, moving for work or opportunity, etc. Those were definitely risks, too. Perhaps that's where I learned it.
Ha, speaking of cultural myths, much of the culture will still tell people that the secret to getting ahead is hard work, when everyone but those with little experience of the world knows that's not enough - you can work extraordinarily hard in a super low paying job and never get much of anywhere.
Truly! My reply to the uttering of this myth is that the migrant workers who bring food to our tables must be the richest people around.
iris lilies
6-25-13, 12:06am
Truly! My reply to the uttering of this myth is that the migrant workers who bring food to our tables must be the richest people around.
You have to work smart to get ahead. "Working hard" is pretty much nonsense syllables and besides mules work hard but I haven't noticed them amassing tons of weath like Steve Jobs. Focused choices, forseeing consequences, acting accordingly--that all is a foundation for success. Luck and drive and ambition are other factors.
DH worked with Mexican green-card holders in the green industry and found them hard working but not smart working. One guy out of the group who worked "smart" learned enough English to pass the driving test which propelled him into a higher level job from where he could make connections and move between companies and meanwhile, he saved his money (all of these guys are pretty good savers!) but he kept that money in the U.S., bought a low end house in a not-so-great neighborhood and lived there along with about 7 other Mexican guys during the 8 - 9 months they were here in the U.S, he charging them rent. This guy got ahead.
I think the trick is to work hard, *and* to work smart.
iris lilies
6-25-13, 12:23am
I think the trick is to work hard, *and* to work smart.
Well., sure--work consistantly with focus. Put in the hours needed. Yup.
Oh, agreed! I DID take risks that we are told those in poverty will not take: "bettering" themselves through education, up and leaving the home place/the home city/the home state and moving to places where I knew no one chasing a career. Those were very much "risks" that are encouraged in my culture. They are choices with consequences.
Everything is A risk. But you specifically said that you consciously chose a life of low risk. That, to me, says that you didn't want to take the big risks to move from middle class to rich. Plenty of people raised in poverty probably make the same decision and end up living in poverty instead of middle class. Are they really so different from you, other than that started in poverty instead of middle class?
I agree with bae. I work smart (efficiently), but I also work hard. Probably harder than I "have to" because I have specific goals and I want them NOW. Or as soon to NOW as possible.
That's kind of how people work though -- apparently -- when they are in it with multiple goals. I not only want to provide great yoga that's accessible to a lot of people, but I also want to make a good income doing it. A good income is not the $40-50k that the average single-owner, 1-3 teacher studios make. I mean, it is a good income, but I want to earn more than that.
And so that's what I'm working to do. :P Which means working hard as well as smart. I would say that my friends who own the small studios that support them (at that $40-50k mark) live pretty comfortably because they work smart -- teach only a few classes per week, keep good records and accounts, and run their businesses efficiently. They have small, tidy retirements, go on holidays to bali once a year, and live simply in rental apartments. Not much different than me right now, except that I teach more classes and work more hours to push my business (marketing, etc).
Anyway, cool stuff.
iris lilies
6-25-13, 12:48am
Everything is A risk. But you specifically said that you consciously chose a life of low risk. That, to me, says that you didn't want to take the big risks to move from middle class to rich. Plenty of people raised in poverty probably make the same decision and end up living in poverty instead of middle class. Are they really so different from you, other than that started in poverty instead of middle class?
They choose to stay in poverty? That's your conclusion? Ok it's a choice. I am happy with my choice, or content is a better word.
Do you think those in poverty are content with their choice?
I think the trick is to work hard, *and* to work smart.
Ok, courtesy of my nearly 86 year old, lifelong conservative father, I am going to add lucky. He is the one who constantly tells me that "your mother & I got very lucky, being born into the time & place we were.", and he's right. They leveraged their luck well; nonetheless, it was a time, place, & race thing.
And truthfully, their luck is the only reason their three kids have college degrees & mortgages. They paid for all our undergrad degrees, given us the downpayments for our homes, & have helped us all out during crises (my recent medical costs, for example). We have all been lucky.
that's basically what the description of the poverty values several posts ago sounded like to me - a gift economy of sorts.
No, the Gift Economy would not necessarily foster poverty values, although there would be some overlap--like valuing relationships above all.
I wonder, beyond personal choices, what the structural, system-wide constraints are, as these are the waters we all swim in. I am most interested in engaging in systemic change, to affect the economic structures which allow poverty to remain a daily reality for too many. I believe that economics and our social structures exist to serve the well-being of us all, not the current structures which apparently serve the well-being of only a few.
I think the Gift Economy absolutely addresses a solution for systemic poverty. But we all have to get out of Plato's Cave to be able to see it. In other words, change whole paradigms about money.
The first would be to stop a growth economy and implement negative growth--in other words, disincentivize hoarding of money (demurrage) Think about your knee-jerk reaction when reading that statement, and allow yourself to have it, but then start exploring the implications.
Ultimately, the potential of this system is that it would eliminate negative poverty values such as "get what you can because tomorrow it will be gone"--no need for a scarcity mentality. This is NOT socialism or communism. It's just a way to manage capital and growth in a way that discourage the monetization of everything to the detriment of other values.
ETA: An example cited by Charles Eisenstein:
The best-known example was instituted in the town of Worgl, Austria, in 1932. To remain valid, each piece of this locally-issued currency required a monthly stamp costing 1% of its face value. This anti-hoarding measure spurred citizens to spend their money quickly, even to pay their taxes early. Instead of generating interest and growing, accumulation of wealth became a burden—much like possessions are a burden to the nomadic hunter-gatherer. Worgl's economy took off; the unemployment rate plummeted even as the rest of the country slipped into a deepening depression; public works were completed, and prosperity continued until the Worgl currency (and hundreds of imitators) were outlawed in 1933 at the behest of a threatened central bank.
ApatheticNoMore
6-25-13, 4:23am
I think the Gift Economy absolutely addresses a solution for systemic poverty. But we all have to get out of Plato's Cave to be able to see it. In other words, change whole paradigms about money.
yea a lot of people think that way, but it still seems utopian. I believe in utopian experiments but I'm not necessarily sold on anything untried.
The first would be to stop a growth economy and implement negative growth--in other words, disincentivize hoarding of money (demurrage) Think about your knee-jerk reaction when reading that statement, and allow yourself to have it, but then start exploring the implications.
there are times I ponder that what we need in this country is close to a revolution, at least the type of thing going on in Brazil, so I'm not sure dimmurge is that radical in comparison (none of it may be good for investments, it's just that the degree of corruption ...).
But anyway, it's never been adequately explained to me why we can't call the *existing* system demurrage, when it's widely believed that the rate of inflation is greater than the rate of return on most investments. Maybe it's just not enough dimmurge, that the rate needs to be higher? (And yes of course you could argue about the way monetary policy is implemented, but then dimmurge by itself is not enough and you are actually arguing for wider monetary reform)
Ultimately, the potential of this system is that it would eliminate negative poverty values such as "get what you can because tomorrow it will be gone"--no need for a scarcity mentality.
I think if your money is constantly deteriorating in value you have a mentality of "get what you can because tomorrow it will be gone". Buy up stuff because money holds no value. How do you prevent the hoarding of goods instead of money? Now in a condition of widespread long term prosperity and security you might neither need to save nor spend what you make to hoard goods, but how that could work at all with the existing system I have no idea.
This is NOT socialism or communism.
Well something like socialism is already a very broad philosophy. But ok, I could see how it might be trying to attempt something like fiscal stimulus (state spending to stimulate the economy) without it being done directly via the state - the state would just set the rate of dimmurge right?
To remain valid, each piece of this locally-issued currency required a monthly stamp costing 1% of its face value. This anti-hoarding measure spurred citizens to spend their money quickly
but why is this a *good* thing? Isn't spending money quickly CONSUMERISM? Isn't consumerism bad for the planet? (yea it's a little more nuanced but broadly). If you set up incentives that people only spend their money in green ways maybe not, but that's again *another* policy, it's not just dimmurge, and it's a policy I'd actually favor on it's own merits.
Eisenstein strikes me as mostly out to sell his seminars (yea, I've made all my substantive points). If I have to read him again at gunpoint, can I at least read David Graeber instead, pretty please ....
Great points, ANM... I appreciate your bringing them up because I am by no means a) an economist and b) sold any one one particular paradigm, but I really am interested in learning about new systems that stop rewarding people/institutions for being greedy and ruining the planet with too much consumption. Really, when people make can billions on a legal bet that the housing market will collapse... is that the economic system we want to live under??
So, to your points, to the best that I can address them (which I can't very well but I'll give you my thoughts)
1) Yes, demurrage by itself is not that revolutionary, but I think if it's combined with a moving towards a more sharing economy, and with growing the Commons, that will start the wheels turning. I agree that it's fascinating to see what others are doing, such as in Brazil.
2)
I think if your money is constantly deteriorating in value you have a mentality of "get what you can because tomorrow it will be gone". Buy up stuff because money holds no value.
Again, you are probably right, unless you combine it with an ethos/system of reciprocity. The whole idea of it is to unclog the natural flow of resources. Nature's systems are a constant loop of growth and decay. Hoarding money is unnatural. It's based on fear and a scarcity mentality--ridiculous when you see how prolific the natural world is. Studies have found that when people receive freely, they are more likely to give freely--not the opposite. I just saw a great YouTube video on that, and I can't find, otherwise I'd post it.
3)
but why is this a *good* thing? Isn't spending money quickly CONSUMERISM? Well, if there is no incentive, nor means, to keep people enslaved by debt (because there's essentially no money to be made in it), there will obviously be less consumerism. If we move towards more of a "we" economy instead of "me" economy (i.e. collaborative consumption), the types of consumption may more naturally shift towards more sustainable products and services. Again, I don't know for sure, but why not play around with the ideas a little?
4)
Eisenstein strikes me as mostly out to sell his seminars (yea, I've made all my substantive points). If I have to read him again at gunpoint, can I at least read David Graeber instead, pretty please .... I'm still in a honeymoon phase with Eisenstein, and I think he's earned his right to sell seminars (and many of them have a gift component built in to the fees). But yes, you may read Graeber.. and if there are any others you think I might like to read, please pass them along!
Focused choices, forseeing consequences, acting accordingly--that all is a foundation for success.
So true. And throw in a little luck. I am just now at 58 understanding this in its entirety, ie waking up. Looking back, I have known very poor people and very wealthy ones. The main difference I can see, other than being born into an upper income situation, is the ability to understand that decisions have consequences. Despite all the forces one might have going against them, one still has choices. The lower income people I have known get by each day and seldom think beyond the next month. I did that too and kind of stumbled through life. I often wonder if it is something as simple as not having a father around to tell me I could do or be anything I wanted to be. Or for that matter, any responsible grown up I could pattern my behavior after. The good choices were there all along but I didn't get it early on.
Yes...while we're all patting ourselves on the back for making all the right choices, let's not forget about luck.
Yes...while we're all patting ourselves on the back for making all the right choices, let's not forget about luck.
“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” - Seneca
“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” - Seneca
But of course luck can go one of two ways - "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft a-gley, [often go awry]" - Robert Burns
iris lilies
6-25-13, 2:03pm
You will notice in my 11:06 pm message of 6/24 that the word "luck" is there, one of several factors in success.
I WAS lucky to have good parents, but I was born wired to be frugal and cautious with money. I think that comes of being a bit of a loner--I don't want to take care of people and I don't want them fussing around me either, it's a two way street. Bug out of my life, society and Nanny G and The Village, ok?
My parents paid 1/2 for college. They offered to co-sign for my first mortgage, but I wanted to do it on my own (I was single, without DH) and did do it. That's the last time I had a mortgage, I dislike that level of debt.
Well I guess I take a taxpayer supported government handout since I use the VA hospital for some of my non-service connected healthcare at a pretty low cost. They do require an annual income and asset means test each year to determine how much you pay for non-service connected care (service connected care is covered 100%) and I do have other health insurance that the VA will bill to get compensated for my care. However, since I only have a catastrophic plan with a high deductible, I don't think the VA ever collected from my private insurance since I haven't had any illnesses...yet ;-)! Otherwise, I (nor anyone in my family no matter how destitute) have ever taken any kind of handout. My Mom worked 2 full time minimum wage factory jobs to support us 3 kids after she became a single Mom (and we all had to move in with her Mom in a 500 sf apt for a few months) never collected anything - not even alimony or any other support or money from my Dad when he left and booted us out of the house. When she was 65 she got a few hundred bucks a month from SS and was on medicare (neither of which I consider a handout) but had worked and contributed into those for decades. As as senior who worked until she was 70, that was her only source of income once she retired.
Personally I don't have any problem with people in need getting a "hand up" as someone said. However, I do think the system needs to be re-worked to provide greater incentives and opportunity (jobs and educations) to get people out of poverty and into self-sufficiancy. The current system lacks a means of motivation to get people off welfare.
Personally I don't have any problem with people in need getting a "hand up" as someone said. However, I do think the system needs to be re-worked to provide greater incentives and opportunity (jobs and educations) to get people out of poverty and into self-sufficiancy. The current system lacks a means of motivation to get people off welfare.
I believe that most people want to feel like they are a part of the larger community, that they can contribute, and that their lives have meaning & purpose. I view the challenges of ending persistent poverty as a societal issue, rather than seeing it as a individual motivation issue.
The systemic barriers I see begins with dreadful infrastructure in most poor neighborhoods -- schools, health care, transportation, housing, food access. Add to that the generations of structural classcism, racism & prejudice that has to be negotiated every time someone of color or who "looks poor" goes out in public, and it's no wonder people who are poor are often discouraged.
Workable incentives that might actually succeed: a liveable minimum wage, by which I mean $18 per hour. Decent, affordable housing. Single payer access to health care. Well subsidized transportation that is public, not just the publicy subsidized roads & gas prices that make private auto transport more affordable for some. A civil police force that doesn't engage in racial profiling.
I have hope that our society can move beyond punishing the poor for being poor, but it isn't happening in any kind of systemic way yet that I am aware of.
ApatheticNoMore
6-27-13, 5:27pm
I believe that most people want to feel like they are a part of the larger community, that they can contribute, and that their lives have meaning & purpose.
I don't think this has anything to do with getting a job. 99% of jobs won't provide that. If jobs actually were that, I don't think you'd hear near so many complaints about handouts (just a suspicion ...). In utopia where jobs were entirely in our hands would everyone contribute? I lean toward yes. Not sure what that has to do with the actual world we live in though! Most people will get jobs in order to avoid being social pariahs when they have a choice though - and some won't. (Plus it is possible to get more money from jobs than assistance and there's not that much assistance available in the first place period).
I don't think this has anything to do with getting a job. 99% of jobs won't provide that. If jobs actually were that, I don't think you'd hear near so many complaints about handouts (just a suspicion ...). In utopia where jobs were entirely in our hands would everyone contribute? I lean toward yes. Not sure what that has to do with the actual world we live in though! Most people will get jobs in order to avoid being social pariahs when they have a choice though - and some won't. (Plus it is possible to get more money from jobs than assistance and there's not that much assistance available in the first place period).
I think there are bound to be a wide range of opinions on that.. maybe all filtered through our own experiences. I tilt more towards redfox. I do think people want to contribute. I also think people want autonomy, fulfillment and self-actualization, and I think the the number of jobs/contributions that can potentially provide that is much, much higher than 1%. I think people who work at lower levels are much more susceptible to dissatisfaction because of poor management, no autonomy, etc., but I think there are a lot of people who like going to work. I think much depends on externals I've mentioned, like management, and a lot depends on internal factors such as the attitude one brings to their work.
We are social animals, and part of our social behavior revolves around the contributions we bring to the whole. I don't believe that people would choose to work JUST because of social acceptance. Some would. It depends.
ApatheticNoMore, interesting perspectives! Thank you. I know that I am motivated by connection & meaning. Negative motivation doesn't work for me, except probably preventing being homeless or hungry; avoiding being a pariah is a motivation that would not have occurred to me. I do think that, for better or for worse (and yes, there are plenty of for-worse jobs out there!) the social connections made in the workplace can be as significant as the paycheck. I am sure I see the world through the lens of what makes me tick!
We are such an interesting species.
ApatheticNoMore, interesting perspectives! Thank you. I know that I am motivated by connection & meaning. Negative motivation doesn't work for me, except probably preventing being homeless or hungry; avoiding being a pariah is a motivation that would not have occurred to me. I do think that, for better or for worse (and yes, there are plenty of for-worse jobs out there!) the social connections made in the workplace can be as significant as the paycheck. I am sure I see the world through the lens of what makes me tick!
We are such an interesting species.
Agreed. Sometimes I think the social connections are every bit as important or even more important than the paycheck. Sure, folks want to be able to pay their bills, but beyond that, most seem to identify their satisfaction in their jobs by first saying 'I like the people/coworkers before they even talk about the actual job. If someone is dissatisfied with their job, further discussion often reveals dislike, or discourse with coworkers/boss.
I'm not saying there aren't absolutely soul sucking jobs out there, but even grocery store workers can seem fairly happy with their jobs, and i'm guessing it's not because they like stocking cans on shelves.
It's the smart service type business with typically low wages that recognizes this.
I do think people want to contribute. I also think people want autonomy, fulfillment and self-actualization, and I think the the number of jobs/contributions that can potentially provide that is much, much higher than 1%.
I completely agree catherine. Most of us are lucky enough to realize that being engaged and making positive contributions makes us feel better and at the same time supports our community. There are a lot of people in this country that (my guess only) aren't aware of that feeling because they've never had a chance to experience it. We need to give them that chance.
I completely agree catherine. Most of us are lucky enough to realize that being engaged and making positive contributions makes us feel better and at the same time supports our community. There are a lot of people in this country that (my guess only) aren't aware of that feeling because they've never had a chance to experience it. We need to give them that chance.
Yes yes yes yes yes!!!
ApatheticNoMore
6-28-13, 1:22pm
Well I am aware of people who collected unemployment for the full 2 years in order to build stuff in their community instead of work, all the unpaid work they did is still there and still paying off (it wasn't any official volunteer program). It wouldn't be the type of situation most people would be ok with just taking hand outs. I am far less judgemental. They had the chance to for once use handouts to do meaningful rather than meaningless work. They did. And then when unemployment ran out they went back to paid employment. Is it my personal plan? No, not really. I'm uncomfotable taking handouts when I can get paid work, however bad the jobs I may get are.
Working for the most part makes me feel really bad (even if some hours of it would be ok, there's just the sheer exhaustion factor of how much it takes out of you - all the life and joy out of me I sometimes feel - and the things I genuinely care about in life must always take second fiddle. Even physically, I sometimes arrive home unable to even use my hands after the day - but I'm not manual labor and thus can't really complain). But hey, it's the way it is. Not many people would want to make the particular contributions of working for the man they currently make if they won the lottery tommorow (most people's first fantasy if this happened is: quit their job! then they might think: buy a mansion and a sports car), so the feelings are pretty universal.
We each pay into unemployment, as we pay taxes for other forms of assistance. I consider these dollars the People's Money. And it is awesome that folks volunteer during unemployment! The non-profit sector counts on volunteers, as do we all. I have an umemployed friend who has been invaluable to me, taking me to MD appts & important errands during my treatment, so my husband can not miss work. I pay her mileage, and always take her to lunch.
ApatheticNoMore
6-28-13, 1:39pm
So your ok with people not looking for work while on unemployment? Only looking when it runs out? The one time in my life I qualified for unemployment I was always looking for work, though it was a recession and took me 6 months (and the job I got was a long way away and turned out to be horrible - they wouldn't even give us any work to do and the boss was verbally abusive - luckily I eventually got another job). When unemployed, ok I don't start working at McDonald's, but I've always taken whatever jobs in my field I could get. I've never been picky in the slightest.
So your ok with people not looking for work while on unemployment? Only looking when it runs out? The one time in my life I qualified for unemployment I was always looking for work, though it was a recession and took me 6 months (and the job I got was a long way away and turned out to be horrible - they wouldn't even give us any work to do and the boss was verbally abusive - luckily I eventually got another job). When unemployed, ok I don't start working at McDonald's, but I've always taken whatever jobs in my field I could get. I've never been picky in the slightest.
I don't have an opinion about what others do regarding looking for work while unemployed -- that's between them & the state. I choose to follow the rules, as I don't like perjuring myself on the forms!
Simpler at Fifty
6-28-13, 2:30pm
We each pay into unemployment, as we pay taxes for other forms of assistance. I consider these dollars the People's Money. And it is awesome that folks volunteer during unemployment! The non-profit sector counts on volunteers, as do we all. I have an umemployed friend who has been invaluable to me, taking me to MD appts & important errands during my treatment, so my husband can not miss work. I pay her mileage, and always take her to lunch.
This is the best post in this thread. :) I like hearing stories like this.
We each pay into unemployment, as we pay taxes for other forms of assistance. I consider these dollars the People's Money. And it is awesome that folks volunteer during unemployment! The non-profit sector counts on volunteers, as do we all. I have an umemployed friend who has been invaluable to me, taking me to MD appts & important errands during my treatment, so my husband can not miss work. I pay her mileage, and always take her to lunch.
This is a common misunderstanding. Employers pay unemployment insurance taxes; workers do not.
http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uitaxtopic.asp
This is a common misunderstanding. Employers pay unemployment insurance taxes; workers do not.
http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uitaxtopic.asp
It's all part of the employer's budget for compensation, so ultimately, it is being paid by the workers, no matter how many shell games are played :-)
Exactly so. It's definitely a shell game. :)
It's all part of the employer's budget for compensation, so ultimately, it is being paid by the workers, no matter how many shell games are played :-)
Exactly right. We always started with a single figure: employee cost. Like any employer we tried to monetize a position that needed to be filled (not as easy as you might think). Once that value was established it was a simple matter of working backwards. The first thing that comes out are the required expenses, unemployment, workman's comp, FICA, etc. After all that is removed you're left with the figure that represents compensation. That gets split between wages and benefits in different ways, but up to that point its the same process for any employer. Employers write the checks for unemployment insurance, but in the end workers pay by accepting wages that are lower than they might be without it.
ApatheticNoMore
6-29-13, 12:01pm
I think who takes the cost hit mostly depends on market power, and I don't think the average worker would have the bargaining power to get that money in salary if they employer weren't paying it in unemployment. Now might the employer hire an extra employee if they didn't have to pay it? I could believe that.
It's all part of the employer's budget for compensation, so ultimately, it is being paid by the workers, no matter how many shell games are played :-)
For budgeting purposes we calculate employee rate plus 40%.
I think who takes the cost hit mostly depends on market power, and I don't think the average worker would have the bargaining power to get that money in salary if they employer weren't paying it in unemployment. Now might the employer hire an extra employee if they didn't have to pay it? I could believe that.
I think you need to reread your Econ textbooks.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.