http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/economy/us-middle-class-basics-study/index.html
"Nearly 51 million households don't earn enough to afford a monthly budget that includes housing, food, child care, health care, transportation and a cell phone, according to a study released Thursday by the United Way ALICE Project. That's 43% of households in the United States."
The figure includes the 16.1 million households living in poverty, as well as the 34.7 million families that the United Way has dubbed ALICE -- Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed. This group makes less than what's needed "to survive in the modern economy."
"Despite seemingly positive economic signs, the ALICE data shows that financial hardship is still a pervasive problem," said Stephanie Hoopes, the project's director.
California, New Mexico and Hawaii have the largest share of struggling families, at 49% each. North Dakota has the lowest at 32%.
Many of these folks are the nation's child care workers, home health aides, office assistants and store clerks, who work low-paying jobs and have little savings, the study noted. Some 66% of jobs in the US pay less than $20 an hour.
(Score: 3, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @08:15AM (24 children)
Thanks Boomers!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @09:31AM (10 children)
It wasn't boomers, it was the globalist, neo-liberal late 90s governments that presided over both the offshoring of labor and a property boom. Most boomers weren't better off when they were borrowing against the overinflated value of their property to put their children on the property ladder. They weren't better off when the markets plunged in 2008 because mortgage lenders exposed themselves to too much risk. It was government that did everything to stop property prices from falling. It was government that failed to stop mortgage companies lending money they didn't have to people that couldn't afford to repay it.
Can you provide any evidence that these things were the publicly stated policy of Western governments before accusing boomers of voting for this course? No? Then put the blame where it belongs - the lying, thieving and incompetent class of parasites we call "professional politicians".
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @10:46AM (4 children)
Boomers fed on the bloated corpse of their ancestors accomplishments and now we pick the scraps. Whether they did so "knowingly" or as herded cattle is of little consequence to their historic guilt. Boomers where the middle managers that carried out off-shoring an entire economy, Boomers where the one placing their unsustainable pension funds in the hands of the usurers that promised ever greater returns, Boomers cashed out everything that society built up for there quick bump. This is how they will be looked upon once they have all died off, regardless of whether they were told to do these things or lied to about the outcomes.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 21 2018, @11:09AM
Go back to GP's post, and re-read. I clicked the link just to ask, "How's that globalization working out for you?"
I can admit that a lot of the globalists are from the boomer generation, but, as a group, or as a class, boomers aren't in favor of globalization. That has been shoved down everyone's throats, as well as up our asses.
When we discuss Nazi Germany's crimes, do we blame everyone born into the generation that Hitler belonged to? No? Yes? Well, if "yes", then you've just offered the Nazi's an escape clause. The Jews are to blame, because they were part of that generation too!
You might want to address some of the assholes and lowlifes, like Mitt Romney who made his fortune selling American businesses to the Chinese. The Clintons, who offered all sorts of tech to the Chinese, free of charge.
Think before you whine. You will probably look a whole lot smarter if you make the effort.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @11:22AM (2 children)
The huge death toll of 2 world wars was an "accomplishment" to be levelled at anyone other than the political classes?
What "historic guilt"?
That was Gen X, the elitist middle class portion of it anyway.
Politicians placed our entire economy there before the boomers were even born.
Boomers rebuilt society, I suggest you check historic interest rates to get an impression as to exactly hard they worked to do so.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 21 2018, @01:58PM
Thank you. Boomers didn't dream up the Federal Reserve. Boomers didn't write the myriad of insurance laws. Boomers had nothing to do with drawing up the plans for all those worthless pension funds. Some upper crust boomers may or may not have helped to plunder those various funds, but they certainly didn't come up with the schemes by which the plundering was accomplished. Ditto for Social Security.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @02:13PM
Remember Clinton selling Lincoln bedroom overnight stays to Chinese diplomats?
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/02/25/clinton.money/ [cnn.com]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @12:10PM (2 children)
Businesses like to have us ignore the illegal alien invasion. These people provide 3rd-world labor rates right in our backyard. This is why wages are so low that "Americans won't do those jobs". Well, of course, if you bring in a bunch of 3rd-world labor, those people will drive down wages.
(Score: 3, Informative) by arslan on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:00AM (1 child)
I'm not American, but it is a bit disingenious to claim "Americans won't do those jobs". I'd call and raise your claim by saying "Humans by nature won't do those jobs". Even in 3rd world countries, where I grew up, we outsource those work to other lower ranked, economically speaking, 3rd world countries whenever we could.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:14PM
Low wages for immigrants are manageable because that crap wage still allows them to send/save money back home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @10:54PM
And who was the dominate voting class during those periods? The government is made up of people. Just claiming government this and government that is a scapegoat argument.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:10AM
"It was government that failed to stop mortgage companies lending money they didn't have to people that couldn't afford to repay it."
What, after requiring lenders to make sub-prime loans to encourage home ownership?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-government-caused-the-mortgage-crisis-2009-10 [businessinsider.com]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @10:23AM
And yet, there is tremendous effort to automate away even the low paying jobs mentioned in tfa. Some things don't make a lot of sense for society collectively, if you step back for a larger view.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by driverless on Monday May 21 2018, @10:52AM (6 children)
I was talking to a civic infrastructure guy a few weeks ago and he brought up the topic of how you can assess the state of a country's economy by its roads. Not by official economic indicators, which can be manipulated to say whatever you want, but just by looking at roads and nearby areas, sidewalks, drains, utilities, etc. That's because when the economy is doing poorly, maintenance is the first thing that gets cut, and that's something you can't disguise with faked-up "economic indicators", and something that won't get fixed in an economy that's "doing well" because the top 5% are getting richer while everyone else is in trouble.
Anyway, look at the state of the roads and sidewalks some time, maybe not in your area if you're in an affluent area, but in the city and countryside around you. There's an awful lot of potholed, patched roads and cracked or even missing sidewalks in the US. An awful, awful lot.
(Score: 1) by suburbanitemediocrity on Monday May 21 2018, @02:24PM (2 children)
My grandfather, according to my parents, used to say that you could tell the state of the economy by looking at the number of exploded retreads that you'd see on the freeways (it used to be very common to see exploded tires on the freeway) as retreading a tire was cheaper than buying new.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Monday May 21 2018, @06:20PM (1 child)
It's still common to see exploded retreads on the freeway. However, the "retread" model would not work very well today. Today only truck tires are routinely retreaded, and that's because new truck tires are especially expensive.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 1) by suburbanitemediocrity on Tuesday May 22 2018, @01:20AM
Yeah, I know about retreads today. I have a trucker friend who says that all non-steering tires are retreads. I do see substantially less treads on the freeway today than I did 40 years ago. Maybe the process is better...?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday May 21 2018, @09:33PM (2 children)
It's more perverse [citylab.com] than that. Look at new road construction. The US could easily maintain its existing roads and bridges by transferring a portion of new road construction to maintenance.
This is particularly dumb since poorly maintained roads increase [tripnet.org] the cost to motorists.
$112 billion per year buys a lot of road and road maintenance. In other words, the economy is doing fine. The political environment is not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @11:28PM (1 child)
Except that $112bn is going to cars and car maintenance, not to fix the roads. Calling this a sign that "the economy is doing fine" is like you've swallowed the entire broken window.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 22 2018, @12:57AM
Ok. So what? According to the study, that money wouldn't be going to cars and car maintenance, if the roads were in good condition.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by unauthorized on Monday May 21 2018, @12:13PM (4 children)
I've modded this AC up to undo the inappropriate troll mod. Whoever is responsible, please stop abusing the moderation system to express disagreement with opinion and/or style of expression, you are damaging the value of the moderation system by turning it into a popularity contest.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @01:02PM (3 children)
Perhaps you are unaware what a troll is. The GP post fits the definition perfectly.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @04:57PM
While many things COULD be trolling they aren't always. It is the intent that matters here, so did the OP actually mean to accuse boomers of creating the fucked up situation we're in? Or did the OP just want to troll everyone with the accusation? My guess is they are serious about the boomers being at fault, and I must say the cultural trend does seem damning. We went from a nation of producers to one of financial manipulators and hard core "fuck you I got mine" meritocrats.
As with any generalization it would be wrong to go around blaming every older person for today's problems and it goes beyond just a single generation. The big reason you see anger against the Boomers is because the Boomers as a group love to trash the kids these days without accepting responsibility for what the part their generation played in creating this fucked up state.
(Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Monday May 21 2018, @07:05PM (1 child)
I am well aware of what trolling is, but I do not accept that any adult person will be upset by such a trivial remark unless they have serious emotional stability issues. Either GGP is one of the worst trolls in existence, or they were genuinely not trolling.
Snark is not trolling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @10:59PM
S'OK! I modded it back down. I really, really disagree with that post. No one should have to read it. It really effected by emotional and mental stability issues. Seriously. Also, it is not a very popular post. Trust me, I have been troll-modded enough to recognize what is unpopular!!
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Monday May 21 2018, @08:16AM (2 children)
I joined all the Work From Home groups on facebook so I can flog http://soggy.jobs/computer/telecommute/ [soggy.jobs]
I have never seen such an outpouring of anguish and despair as I witness daily in the Work From Home groups.
Quite commonly it's a single mother who doesn't have enough money to provide for her children.
I always recommend applying for entry-level support or QA jobs because those generally don't require experience. I've gotten many positive responses.
But all the other remote... uh... "jobs" ... are either transparently obvious pyramid schemes, they want your bank account number or they charge a startup fee that is never recouped.
Some right chap approached me privately about "investing" in his pyramid scheme. That it was a pyramid was made obvious by his being specific about the "guaranteed" returns I would enjoy for "investing" various amounts.
FB removed every last one of his posts then deleted his account.
But he'll just register again under a different name.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @09:14AM
Single mothers are quite possibly most degenerate people in the world. Sure maybe the historic scorn we poured on them was a bit much, but applauding them does no one any fucking favors. With Democrats working overtime to break families asunder thie number of single mothers will only increase. If you got no daddy or bog brother to keep you from getting impregnated by a YOLO sheister, the dumb woman brain just goes along thinking it's love.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday May 21 2018, @11:04PM
Now you know why Betsy DeVos is the Secretary of de-Education. Amway, and it's Web2.0 incarnation, Quixtar, need more people who cannot comprehend pyramid schemes, so they can keep the scam going.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday May 21 2018, @08:28AM (24 children)
There are a lot of causes that feed into this...
An earlier poster blames the "boomers", but that's true only in the sense that the boomer generation is the one that brought women full-scale into the work force. In addition to feminism, this was also just practical: two incomes raises your standard of living. Only...prices adapt to available income, and so do people's expectations of what they can afford. So now, two incomes is nearly essential, meaning that single parents have no chance to make ends meet.
The you have health care the "Affordable Care Act", has massively increased the price of health care. Either single payer or free market would be better. Obamacare manages to combine the worst aspects of both: massive regulation, no consumer choice and hence no competition - and yet all the middlemen are still in the picture, with their own massive bureaucracies and rake-offs.
Finally, one shouldn't forget the source of this study. United Way isn't a bad charity, but it is a huge organization with an interest in keeping the money flowing. Studies like this help them drive their funding campaigns, help them stay in the news. You would hardly expect them to pushing a paper saying "we aren't needed anymore, please stop sending us money", would you?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Touché) by PiMuNu on Monday May 21 2018, @08:56AM (19 children)
> In addition to feminism
What you say may be true - but it's worth pointing out that equality is a good aim.
> Finally, one shouldn't forget the source of this study.
Any better source?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @10:11AM (5 children)
Can you look at the suicide statistics amongst males and the depression statistics amongst females and tell us if that is a "good aim"?
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday May 21 2018, @10:21AM (4 children)
Good news, everyone! We're equalizing!
Suicide Rates Climb In U.S., Especially Among Adolescent Girls [npr.org]
Youth Suicidal Behavior Is on the Rise, Especially Among Girls [wsj.com]
bonus [bbc.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @10:44AM
A resounding "success" for the equality crew, if they keep going this way they'll put Stalin to shame. Do you have any statistics showing increases in equality between the sexes wrt workplace fatalities?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Monday May 21 2018, @11:20AM (2 children)
I understand that there is a correlation, but what's your evidence that equality (esp employment equality) causes suicide among teenage girls?
Let me make a counter-argument, adolescent girls have not entered employment so the suggestion that female employment is causing suicide is very hard to support. There is a weak argument for increased academic stress. It's a bit weak though.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday May 21 2018, @02:12PM
"Equality" is just a remark for AC. My only point is that the suicide gap between young males and females may be on track to disappear.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DECbot on Monday May 21 2018, @06:53PM
I believe the gp is diverging from suicide studies to workplace fatalities to illustrate how gender equality is progressing. He is assuming that (1) work place fatalities are dominated by men, (2) you're more likely to be a victim of a workplace fatality if you work a dangerous job, and therefore (3) men doing the majority of the dangerous jobs. I'm not going to bother google to ferret out the studies to prove or disprove these assumptions, but since I believe in gender equality at the workplace, more women should become victims of workplace fatalities. Perhaps the receptionist's desk phone could be wired to run 40A, 3-phase 460V to the headset?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 21 2018, @01:49PM (10 children)
Equality is a good aim. However, feminism isn't aiming for equality. Who, precisely, decided that "housewife" or "professional homemaker", or "stay-at-home mom" is a "bad thing"?
Things could have gone very differently. We could have taken a cue from that stupid "Mr. Mom" movie. More men could have opted to stay at home with the kids, while Mom brought home the bacon for Dad to cook. We could have just given Mom more respect, and allowed her to stay at home. Instead, we've pretty much forced women out of their traditional roles. and pushed them into the work force.
Equality. Hell of a concept, isn't it? To bad that we don't actually practice it. I'll never forget Obama's speech: http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/video-obama-slams-stay-at-home-moms/ [wnd.com]
(Score: 5, Interesting) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 21 2018, @02:55PM (6 children)
"Feminism" is not a monolithic entity, anymore than "conservatism" or "liberalism" or whatever. Yes, there are feminists who seem to view staying at home with kids as an inferior choice. But I also know many self-proclaimed "feminists" who think that's also a perfectly valid and valued choice. And by the way, it's not only feminists who make statements like Obama did there -- in fact, that position traditionally has more in line with bigoted careerist men.
I'll never forget the day my pregnant wife showed up to a professional conference, and a senior member of her field took one look at her and said, "Ah, I see you've chosen to go a different way." That is, to a certain generation of men, it was assumed that a young woman who got pregnant before enough career success wasn't "serious" about the profession, regardless of whether she stayed home with the kids for several years or not. Similarly, a couple years later my wife admitted to me that she would never admit when she was taking a day off because our kid was sick... That would be viewed by some.colleagues as less committed or whatever, even though she was perfectly entitled to the personal days herself and never abused anything.
That is the attitude that creates statements like Obama's. Losing a few years of experience in work may happen if a woman decides to take time off with her kids. And that's fair and expected if someone makes that choice. What rankles a lot of women is that devotion to kids or family -- even aside from being a full-time parent -- may be viewed as "insufficiently committed to your job." I've also personally heard the stereotyping: a male colleague who requested to move a meeting because he needed to leave early to deal with a sick kid was met with "oh, what a devoted father!" but a female colleague who had a similar request was met with grumbling..Even though this woman never created issues around her personal life and honestly worked more hours than average.
And yes, I'll agree with you that some of the worst critics of women in those situations can be other careerist women -- often self-proclaimed "feminists" themselves. But that doesn't mean all women or all "feminists" agree with that attitude.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 21 2018, @04:31PM (5 children)
Don't waste your time. Runaway is an ancestral Red-piller, one of the ones who got old and fat and lazy (and somehow, MARRIED...*shudder*) before the bile and anger and disdain he has for women could make him truly dangerous, but he still thinks of us all as inherently confused and irrational.
He doesn't actually understand any of the things you said, will not read your post to make the effort to anyway, and would rather sit there with his fingers in his ears going "Hurrr, bitches, amirite?" than change his thinking, such as it is, the smallest little bit.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @11:07PM (4 children)
Quit pretending that you know anything about the typical female experience.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:07AM (3 children)
How the fuck does that follow from what I just said? And I know a damn sight more than you do, on account of BEING ONE, if nothing else.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:22PM (2 children)
A real girl on SN? Hey babe wanna go get some corn flakes upstairs sometime?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:49PM (1 child)
First of all, I haven't been a "girl" for 14+ years. Second, cut it out. I'm already taken and no one but my girlfriend calls me "babe."
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @09:14PM
Sheesh fine then sweet cheeks :P No joke goes unpunished! I thought the "upstairs cornflakes" would sell it but then again you probably are imagining that I'm a TMB wannabe trying to mess with you. Just a joke I thought you'd chuckle at :(
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Monday May 21 2018, @02:56PM
I agree, more-or-less. I was just reacting to a post somewhere up the chain which didn't make this clear.
> Who, precisely, decided that "housewife" or "professional homemaker", or "stay-at-home mom" is a "bad thing"?
and just to be clear, neither is "house husband", or "stay-at-home dad"
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @11:10PM (1 child)
I did, you male chauvanist pig! The dishes had better be washed by the time I get off work today, or there won't be no "domestic tranquity"!
Mrs. Runaway1963
(Score: 3, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 21 2018, @11:27PM
Ya stupid heifer, it's "domestic tranquility". And, you spelled your name wrong too.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:21AM (1 child)
Why? Like Communism, Feminism and equalism in general have zero success stories after running the experiment almost as long.
I'm down with "shit Jefferson said" as much as the next guy but you do have to read "All Men are Created Equal, they are endowed by their Creator..." in the correct context. He certainly wasn't talking about "Equal" like the word is used today. Equal before the law is an acceptable practice to strive for (so long as everyone understands it won't ever actually be attained) simply because any other proposed basis for a society has pretty horrible and obvious flaws that have also been tried and the flaws found to really exist in practice. Equality of outcome was certainly not a concept any of the Founders would have entertained as the thoughts of a sane mind. Pretending men and women are interchangeable would have gotten you locked away in an institution.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday May 23 2018, @11:04AM
> Why?
I think I would argue from an a priori ethical standpoint, i.e. some people (women in this case) tend to be suppressed without doing anything wrong, and rinse in some argument about natural justice.
From a pragmatic point of view, enabling a larger proportion of the potential work force to work does not seem like a bad idea. House work and child care does not take up a full time adult's efforts.
I take your point about "equalism in general have zero success stories". I draw your attention to the fact that we live in unprecedented times, so appealing to historical precedent is not a valid argument. E.g:
* Rapid, worldwide communication has never existed until about 20-30 years ago.
* Universal education (in the West) has never existed until about 100 years ago.
* Universal suffrage (in the West) has never existed until about 100 years ago.
Doesn't mean I am right of course, but just points out that your argument is flawed.
> Equality of outcome [is not sane]
I agree, I think equality of opportunity is worth striving for however. Maybe we agree?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @10:17AM (3 children)
I'll certainly agree with "various causes", but can't agree with this one:
> the boomer generation is the one that brought women full-scale into the work force.
In terms of bringing women into industry (factory work) in the USA, that goes back at least to WWII and "Rosie the Riveter" -- the parents and grandparents of the boomers. I'm a boomer (nearing retirement age now), my single-parent grandmother worked in WWII sewing parachute harnesses. While there may have been more stay-at-home moms in the 1950s, many had either worked themselves, or had mothers who worked in the war effort.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @11:08AM
You're talking short-term employment vs. a long-term career though. Filling in temporarily for guys who aren't there doesn't impact the economy nearly as much as doubling the workforce.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 21 2018, @02:12PM (1 child)
Sorry, but I've got to disagree with your comments about WW2.
My mother was typical of the Rosy the Riveter generation. She worked men's jobs, because there were no men to work those jobs. She wrote letters to her sweetheart in the Pacific, pretty regularly I guess. She was horrified to learn that her sweetheart had been wounded, and was in fact, a basket case in California. She waited for months, for him to be released from the Navy, so that he could come home. And, almost immediately, she quit her job to care for him. My mama's generation didn't "want" to do those men's jobs. They were forced by necessity to do them.
Please note that I said my mama was typical of her generation. There were exceptions, of course. Many women refused to weld, rivet, drive trucks, carry trusses, dig ditches, and all the other things that men "should" have been doing. On the opposite end of the spectrum, there were many other women who refused to go back to the kitchen, or the office, or wherever.
My whole point is, the boomer generation did indeed accept women in the workforce, in places where women were never accepted in the past. That was part and parcel with the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's, all wrapped up with feminism.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:34AM
You are missing the point I think. After women had been actually doing those jobs for several years it was impossible to maintain the position that they couldn't do them. Everybody knew they COULD do them and too many were afraid to do the right thing and tell them "Yes, many of you can do these jobs but you shouldn't because it would be bad for civilization to take large numbers of mothers out of that more important job." Like the original women's rights movement, it was yet another "shit test" that our fathers and grandfathers failed.
The correct solution, the one that had held for centuries, was to accept that for various reasons a few women would seek work in (mostly) white collar positions and allow them to do so, but keep enough stigma to discourage it becoming widespread while celebrating motherhood. Then we should have quietly sent death squads around to the (((Commies))) in the mass media inculcating the message that working outside the home was more fulfilling than motherhood. But we didn't have the balls and now we live in the decaying ruins of a once great civilization.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Monday May 21 2018, @08:37AM
Life expectancy in the US is falling [fortune.com]. From TFA:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @09:14AM (1 child)
Most people I've met do not budget at all.
I come from a poor immigrant, mostly non-native speakers most were doing well except this one family who decided to build a swimming pool in their yard and lost their house over it.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @04:24PM
why did they put the pool in their basement and use the house as a tarp?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @10:23AM (14 children)
They always seem to have enough money to constantly have a cigarette in one hand and a can of beer in the other
Have there been any studies on how well these same individuals could pay their rent, buy their food, etc., if they did not literally burn money (cigarettes) and did not buy the beers they always seem to have on hand.
In some instances, their inability to make their rent is somewhat determined by poor choices elsewhere (cigs. and beer).
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @12:45PM (9 children)
Nobody sets out with the intention of drinking every day, drugs and alcohol can quickly become a stress coping mechanism with both wealthy and poor people being destroyed by the same spiral of addiction. Ever pour yourself a glass of wine after a stressful day at work? Guess what happens when the stress of circumstances entirely outside of your control begins inducing physiological changes... Everything will be fine after the next paycheck, you'll quit then...
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @01:26PM (5 children)
You hear that sound? That's am mp3 of the smallest violin in the world playing just for them.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @02:44PM (4 children)
All of them?
It's a step further than I'm going to blame individuals for predicaments entirely beyond their control.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @03:04PM (3 children)
Entirely beyond their control? Withdrawal may not be pleasant but dealing with discomfort is part of life. If you lack the ability to do so, you lack the ability to live. Being as I have zero children, I'm fairly certain "they" are not my responsibility to support even to the age of majority, much less their entire lives. I'll help a family member/friend/neighbor out when I can but anyone telling me I'm morally obligated to pay someone I've never met's way through life can go fuck themselves.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @03:31PM (2 children)
You're not seeing it...
I'd make assistance easier to get, bundle it with counselling and kick people off after 3 months. Entrapping someone into financial dependence on welfare is just as immoral as the dealer hooking them on heroine.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @08:01PM (1 child)
Making a central welfare system available at all is a highly dubious proposition. I mean, look at all the good doing so has done for the black community. They've gone from ~80% nuclear families to ~80% single parent families in the span of two generations, with all the poverty and such that statistically comes with single parent homes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @09:36PM
Yeah, that couldn't have had anything to do with Nixon's culture war. Nope, not a thing. It must be all the things you're told to hate and revile! Oh lookit that, those things match up nicely with what the really rich folks want.
asshat
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Oakenshield on Monday May 21 2018, @01:36PM (2 children)
I am reading a book called "White Out" which purports to be the true story of a college graduate student and his addiction to heroin. I would be bankrupt trying to satisfy the heroin costs this guy had. He claims to have forged, fenced, stolen, pawned, begged, and borrowed to support his habit. I haven't finished the book yet, but so far, he comes across as the scummiest human being you can imagine. His story as he has written it does not elicit sympathy or compassion. Although I know that he is now a PhD faculty at a University and so has (probably) kicked his habit, I have to admit, you'll be rooting for an OD before you get very far in it. If I worked near him today, I would never turn my back. You know what he is capable of doing and he's only one (additional) relapse away from doing it.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:40AM (1 child)
Wonder what type of person he would have been if heroin had been available for a couple of bucks a day?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Oakenshield on Tuesday May 22 2018, @03:19PM
I'm guessing, still a scumbag. I lost count of how many times he attempted addiction treatments for 24 hours or so. He had no concern passing on the costs involved for that to his victims. He misses or shows up late and high to teach his classes as a GTA, taking from the students who pay for those classes. He was banned for a year from his school for behavioral problems. His story so far really has no redeeming points.
We have heroin issues in the region of the country that I live. There are "functional" addicts in the communities. I would not consider any of them upstanding citizens though. Local businesses are beginning to deny access to their restrooms to customers because they are tired of cleaning up needles and calling EMS for the ODs. It's not a product cost problem. It's a scumbag problem.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 21 2018, @05:32PM (3 children)
They always seem to have enough money to constantly have a cigarette in one hand and a can of beer in the other
Only 15.5% of people in the US smoke. [cdc.gov]
15.5 < 49.
You're assertion is unsupported.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 21 2018, @06:08PM
Don't confuse him with facts and reality and truth, he's got a Narrative (TM) to push.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday May 21 2018, @09:53PM
And of course, alcohol use has much greater [nih.gov] levels of penetration.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Tuesday May 22 2018, @07:00AM
15.9% smoke tobacco. Seems weed the is choice of the new generation. Bigger point is entirely valid in that "poor" people seem to have little problem obtaining all sorts of things they really shouldn't be wasting their limited resources on.
But the bottom line is people aren't poor because they don't have money. They don't have money because they are poor people. Show me a poor person and within a couple of questions I can get to the proximate cause as to why they are poor. It is a sad, depressing, but fairly short list of a few pathological behavior patterns behind most of it.
1. Single parent.
2. Substance abuse.
3. Lack of ability to plan and/or budget. Ignorance is correctable by education but you can't fix stupid.
4. Failure to get an education. Even in a shithole school you generally CAN learn to read, write and do basic math. And that was before the Internet.
So the usual "moar government" proposals can only make it worse since it encourages #1, is responsible for a good part of #4 and by removing most of the pain from #2 and #3 ensure a lot more people fall into those traps. And all four create more dependency on both the government and the whole NGO cabal that has grown up around the poverty pimping racket. If they solved the problem their reason to exist goes away.
Those account for the bulk of the problem. There are of course people who are simply broken, physically or mentally, in some way, sometimes through absolutely no fault of their own. Some will become single parents even after doing everything an otherwise sensible person should do; the real world has uncertainty in all we do. In some shitholes and utterly broken families I'd agree the effort to acquire an education crosses from what a "reasonable person" can be expected to do unaided. A compassionate society should make sure such people don't fall through the cracks. Letting the government be the agent of that compassion has been proven to be a bad idea.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @10:48AM (59 children)
Funny how that chicken in every pot that some folks demand just keeps expanding no matter what they're given, ain't it? I mean, we added four things between the headline and TFS. Me, I prefer the state not be mommy, daddy, and big brother. I already have a family, thanks just the same, and I don't let them get all up in my business or dictate how I live my life either. I guess I'm just funny like that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday May 21 2018, @11:29AM (41 children)
> child care
It's a good point - child care, essentially, means someone to work for you. In UK there are statutory regulations for staff to children ratios for childcare (IIRC, 3:1 for under 3s, 6:1 for under 5s); so, for younger families, by construction, at least 1/6th of the workforce cannot afford child care (assumes one working parent per family but ignores overheads).
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @12:03PM (36 children)
Most people also forget the rest of the overhead necessary for a second person to work at all. Clothes, transportation, food if you don't pack your lunch, anything else necessary to perform your job but not supplied by your employer. And that still doesn't take into account the intangibles like having to come home and work at home doing the tasks a housewife would have traditionally taken care of after you've been working all day at your job. Women entering the work force en masse was not quite as rosy as it was billed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Touché) by PiMuNu on Monday May 21 2018, @01:15PM (35 children)
> Women entering the work force en masse was not quite as rosy as it was billed.
For men, at least.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @01:31PM (34 children)
For anyone. The housework doesn't magically not need doing just because a woman now gets a paycheck. Her work load has in fact increased as well as his (assuming some agreed upon split of traditional housewife duties) by virtue of her having a job as well. I dunno about you but adding to my workload is not something I find pleasant or desirable.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday May 21 2018, @01:39PM (33 children)
But *choice*. I think you have a thing for freedom (seeing other posts). Surely that applies to men and women?
Besides which, housework isn't as much work as you seem to think.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @02:03PM (32 children)
Choice is all fine and good but it is best when it's informed choice. Knowing the likely consequences of your choices is important.
Dude, I'm a bachelor with a roommate and every other week his two kids. I know full well the never-ending toil that is housework. It completely, utterly blows goats to have to keep up with laundry, dishes, sweeping/mopping, dusting, picking up other people's metaphorical shit, mowing, cooking, and what have you on top of a paying job. Your opinion may vary but mine is the only one relevant to my life.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday May 21 2018, @03:05PM (31 children)
> metaphorical shit
His kids are obviously better than mine :)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @03:11PM (30 children)
Heh, yeah, out of diapers and not yet old enough to get drunk and make an unwise decision regarding the safety of a fart.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @04:29PM (29 children)
i dont have the family you speak of anymore, and would like for a safety net to exist should i be unable to work. pensions are gone, but badly managed 401ks still offer some hope.
but you did not discuss how to get other people better families, you guys drifted from the 'because i was born better than you i dont want you to have free hand outs from the government that isnt your mom' to something else.
i was hoping to hear why basic scraping the bottom minimums to keep a guy from losing everything after he lost his family and the government isnt supposed to replace them... are somehow bad.
ill try to be better looking when i am recinarnated. maybe that will help. it helps for endangered creatures when they are cute, right?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 21 2018, @04:35PM (10 children)
He's not really about freedom. Not in the larger sense, and not in the final analysis. He's about *his* freedom to do what *he* wants and to Hell with the rest of society. I'm somewhere between puzzled and maddened that so few people can see this. The guy's so completely self-centered he's become a human Mobius strip.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @05:12PM (2 children)
I think plenty of people see TMBs scummy self-centered nature, but on the flip side he has a LOT of compadres. These are people angry that the American Dream has failed them, and you can even see it with TMB who pretends he is a super successful self-made man yet he lives with a roommate who also has occasional kids. Unless he's that pathetically lonely then he's just another loud mouthed braggart trying to cover his own insecurities.
Anyway, yeah these people are incredibly selfish and narrow minded with the unfortunate need to be the loudest in the room.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday May 21 2018, @05:18PM (1 child)
I wish more people would get up his beak about it, though. Anyone *that* full of shit ought to squelch when he walks...
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:46AM
It quickly becomes frustrating, like banging your head on a wall. The only way he might change is through a life altering event and even then he is so set in his ways and so sure they're right...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Monday May 21 2018, @05:36PM (5 children)
The central theme of his posting history is "I've got mine, screw you".
The hilarious part of it is that he actually thinks he is successful in life, whereas he has almost completely failed. He has nothing to show for his years. When he dies, who will mourn him?
He has described periods of his life when he did not work, I wonder how much he leached off the state during that time.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @08:16PM (1 child)
You wish, sweety. I take care of the folks I give a damn about when they need a hand. I won't have you fuckwad progressives telling me I'm morally obligated to work to support people I've never met though. I don't wish those folks ill. You guys though? May you be ass-raped by a cactus with herpes.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday May 21 2018, @08:47PM
In denial much? Your statement is the very essence of "I've got mine, screw you".
I don't know if you are Christian, but if you are, you might like to review this page and ponder on whether any of these encouraged people to only help those people one knows:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/topical-verses/bible-verses-about-helping-others/ [biblestudytools.com]
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2, Touché) by ChrisMaple on Tuesday May 22 2018, @01:22AM (2 children)
Conservatives: I want more, so I'll earn it. Liberals: I want more, so I'll have the government steal it for me.
(Score: 3, Touché) by dry on Tuesday May 22 2018, @04:52AM (1 child)
In my experience with conservatives, its more like, I want more so I'll rip some people off. They're the hardest ones to get to pay their bills even though they can usually afford it and they're very good at rationalizing why they don't need to pay their way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @09:23AM
And in my experience Republicans are by far the CHEAPEST. They don't want to pay for anything they don't have to, unless they are schmoozing their way up the social ladder and don't want people badmouthing them so they plateau at a certain tier.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday May 21 2018, @10:19PM
Even if that were true, that's the standard state for humanity. We should instead consider the real question, "Is he harming someone with his selfishness?" I believe the answer would be no.
Well most people are blinded to some degree by ideology and emotion. But it doesn't all blind in the same way. So of course, their blindness doesn't cause them to see what your blindness causes you to see.
I think it's a reasonable request in these threads to forgo the phony, moral signaling and instead explain, plainly as you can and with sufficient backing - evidence or reasoning, why there is harm and what sort of behaviors would make that better. TMB's first post makes a good point. There is no end to what is considered "needed" for a poor family. No one ever came up with a serious rebuttal to that, it just all slid eventually into thread detours like this one speaking of TMB's alleged selfishness.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday May 21 2018, @08:09PM (17 children)
Because the government has to steal it from me to give it to you. When I work, I work for myself and those I give a damn about. I do not work for some shitstain who can't figure out how to live or doesn't want to work and is demanding comfort be handed to them. If they offered anything of value to society, society would be rewarding them for it in the form of a paycheck. Instead they suck the blood from society and give nothing in return but hatred and violence. They are parasites.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Monday May 21 2018, @08:49PM (13 children)
IOW, "I've got mine, screw you".
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Monday May 21 2018, @10:32PM (12 children)
I get that you and many others feel most poverty is due to forces beyond the victims' control rather than the usual suspects like drug abuse, financial incompetence, sloth, and bad attitude. We just don't agree with you on that.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday May 22 2018, @10:41AM (11 children)
OK khallow, looks like you've found the crux of the disagreement, so this definitely needs further examination by those interested.
I very much doubt that "most" is accurate here. "Some", certainly, but "most" seems highly unlikely. Even if "most" is accurate, it's that desperate few others that want to and simply can't that really need help on compassionate grounds. Where the two camps differ is whether they have sufficient empathy for that group to justify acting in their aid.
Trying is very much not the same thing as succeeding. Where you're going wrong is assuming that everyone has potential that at least equals TMB. People have genetic differences and different backgrounds. There absolutely is not equality of opporunity. Many are born into holes so deep, they'll never climb out even if they scramble up their whole life.
It doesn't have to be most poverty. The point is, giving basic help to all the poor ensures that the few that really are broken (I think you already acknowledged their existence) get the lifesaving aid they so desperately need, without impacting the haves very significantly at all as a percentage of income.
On a tangentially related point, it's arguable to what to degree each of your examples of drug abuse, financial incompetence, sloth and bad attitude, are under the victim's control. Typically, each of these characteristics will have been shaped by external environment in combination with genetics. Hell, I'm not even sure free will exists in any meaningful sense.
What we don't agree on is whether people that repeatedly make bad choices deserve to suffer (in the extreme, to the point of starvation, hypothermia and death, or jail if they can stomach resorting to crime).
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 22 2018, @12:39PM (10 children)
I'd put it above 90%. Most people in the US have it figured out well enough to get by. Even the dumb ones.
So what? It's not that hard and you can try more than once. Sure, this is a comfortable myth that rationalizes your nanny impulses.
Or we could just give the help to the ones who need it.
As I've noted before, everything is arguable, no matter how tenuous their connection to reality. You can "argue" these things, but there's not much point to doing so.
Why do you say that? For example, if I go into remote wilderness unprepared then all those things (aside from jail) are quite possible. Further, it's a rather predictable consequence. At that point, it goes beyond merely being deserved to getting what you want. If you don't want starvation, hypothermia, death, etc, then make better choices. Finally, there's the cost to society, if they try to bail me out. The rescue effort could kill more people than were at risk in the first place.
Second, we ignore here the peculiar economic concept of "moral hazard". It's the idea that if you reduce the negative consequences from a behavior, then you get more of the behavior. But repeatedly bailing out people who routinely make bad decisions is not something I think should be encouraged, even if they suffer a bit as a result.
It works in reverse too, but I'm not so enamored of preventing bad behavior that I want to make it artificially onerous. It's its own reward. So no bailing people out when they smoke and drink their wages instead of saving it. But similarly, no sin taxes or war on drugs to make the burden on those people artificially high.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Tuesday May 22 2018, @01:04PM (9 children)
Often the ones that don't (e.g. homeless) drop completely off the radar as politicians and media like to ignore them (unless they become criminals).
That involves the implementation of some kind of assessment process that typically winds up costing a similar amount to just giving a baseline safety net to all of the unemployed / poor. And worse, it's almost impossible for any such assessment process to be completely fair. Either some of those that don't "deserve" help get it, or some that desperately need it perish without it. The more compassionate option of the two in a prosperous, civilized society is the first one.
That maybe so for some arguments but I don't think that applies to what I said. What you called "sloth" can be a symptom of other problems such as depression due to the hopeless situation these people are already in. Financial incompetence can be due to a lack of intelligence combined with poor education and they may not even realize that it's a problem that needs fixing. There are plenty of people in such situations that desperately want to be out of them. I don't think your suggestion that they simply keep trying will work. It works for some people, but over a population of millions there will always be some hard luck or broken cases.
I'm certainly not suggesting that there should be no downsides to making bad decisions. I don't think many other people would think that either, even commies. It's really a question of what degree of suffering and harm is considered tolerable in society. That's where your camp and my camp disagree. I think there should always be a baseline level of help, that people can refuse if they wish, to prevent starvation and death. You do not and neither does Mr. Buzzard.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 22 2018, @06:54PM (5 children)
I want to thank you for fighting the good fight here. This site is infested with gibbertarian shitheads who think "fuck you, I got mine" is in the Gospel somewhere, and it's nice to know I'm not the only one pushing back. You're articulate, humane, and most importantly correct :)
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Tuesday May 22 2018, @07:16PM (4 children)
Thanks Azuma. :) It gives my gray matter a bit of a workout and I'm genuinely fascinated by what chain of reasoning makes these Soylentils tick. It might help to uncover something about just how fucked up human civilization seems to be right now, why, and even how to fix it. If a single thing written on here helps someone else, so much the better as well.
The funniest thing of all about it is that I used to think my politics was slightly right of center. Then the western world seemed to totally lose the plot.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday May 22 2018, @07:35PM
It's not complicated, what makes them tick. It's simple, half-unconscious selfishness, and that informs everything they say and do. They like to pretend they're coming at this from a principled position and that their politics are the end result of research and thorough thought experiments, but it's clear as daylight they came to a conclusion first and are now bending reality around that conclusion to maintain it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 23 2018, @12:22AM (2 children)
The funny thing is that I don't have the same problems figuring you out. Maybe someone ought to think about that.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday May 23 2018, @11:38AM (1 child)
Oh khallow, it's awfully polite of you not to mention what you concluded.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:19AM
Indeed. But moving on with my polite but acidic insinuation, there is this pattern where some people have all sorts of trouble figuring out other people who have a worldview sufficiently different that disagreement occurs. It'd probably help, if they actually listened every once in a while.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 23 2018, @12:09AM (2 children)
The number of homeless is around 0.5%. You'll need to find twenty more such groups just as big in order to get to 10%.
The US Census does a pretty good job of finding them. They aren't that invisible.
But it has the virtue of giving help only to those who need it. I used to be interested in UBI (universal basic income) and such. But I've never heard a good argument for it aside from the supposed low bureaucratic overhead. US Social Security is a similar program, basically a modest UBI for old people, but it's so poorly implemented that it's a looming, fiscal disaster (though not the most looming of such US programs, that goes to Medicare).
It's also a question of how much suffering you are willing to cause in order to ease that suffering. These programs are not zero cost. They have substantial trade offs. I can't take someone seriously who claims to care about compassion and suffering, yet can't be bothered to care about the suffering that their proposed policies cause.
People like TMB care in the first place because these policies harm them. That sort of selfishness is universally recognized in democracies, consider such examples as the right to self-defense or the right to protest for causes you support. I think it's time to consider their suffering rather than the few worst humans of society.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday May 23 2018, @12:08PM (1 child)
It's a hard statistic to estimate. Those that aren't in shelters generally don't fill in forms or stand and be counted. Either way, we have drifted from the original point:
I took "these" people to mean the poor, which would mostly intersect with the unemployed, though some in employment are as poor. I did not take it to mean the entire US population. The 90% figure was yours, not mine.
At least we both seem to acknowledge that there are people that do need help and hopefully both agree that they should be given it. This last point is a view I don't think TMB shares what with his apparent social Darwinianism. We can quibble over how many need help and how the help should be metered out. My position is generally that the help must not be abolished and a catch-all is always morally better than letting people die even if they're fewer than one million.
Until your stated suffering approaches the intensity of starvation or hypothermia, or significantly affects an overwhelming majority of the entire population, I'm not interested.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:24AM
Unless they do.
You're still not to 90%.
Unless, of course, it hurts more people than it helps.
What do you think making people poorer does in the first place? That already is the primary metric you've cited for causing suffering in the first place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @09:38PM (1 child)
You are a small red stick.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @11:18PM
A Baton Rouge, so to speak. Not helping is harming. Let me show you on the doll where the little red stick didn't touch me.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @05:22AM
There are parasites in our society, but they are the rich not the poor. The rich parasites skim off the value created by the folks who actually perform work. They scheme to pay the workers as little as they can get away with, and keep the remainder for themselves without working for it. Parasites!
But, you might protest that the rich have earned their positions of power and wealth. No, the vast majority simply inherited these. And, if you go back far enough, their great, great... great ancestors stole their wealth.
When those ancestors lived, there was no private property. Everything was held in common. Nobody had to beg a rich parasite for his leavings to survive. The ancestors of today's rich parasites had to both steal "their" property from the commons, and had to force the peasants to work for them both with simple force, and by preventing access to the resources that had previously been held in common by all.
Recommended reading:
What is Property? - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen [theanarchistlibrary.org]
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday May 21 2018, @02:07PM (3 children)
I'm not sure I follow your logic there. The staffing ratios are just there to make sure that childcare provision is safe - one adult trying to keep an eye on a couple dozen 3 year olds is a recipe for disaster.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Monday May 21 2018, @03:00PM
I know. The point is, by construction, the childcare worker, by construction, won't be able to afford their own childcare worker. And that is, for good reasons, one in three or four people in a universe with full employment of both parents where everyone has a young family. So one in three or four people "cant afford childcare" by construction.
I realise that not everyone has a young family, so my math is off. I am trying to make an "in principle" point.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday May 22 2018, @07:28AM (1 child)
You are the problem, the innumerate. Think of it this way. If a child care worker can only watch three children and gets one "full time equivalent" pay then it stands to reason that after taxes, overhead, liability insurance and profit the daycare center is going to be charging at least half a FTE to take on a child. So if we are talking about childcare for the lower middle class (the same general class as a worker in a good daycare center) the mom wanting to put her child in daycare will be spending about half of her pretax money to have someone else do her job. If she has two children she is out being an "empowered women in the workforce" all day just to pay someone else (plus the overhead of them being raised in a daycare center vs a home) to raise her children. Might was well hire an illegal to be a nanny, would be cheaper and the kids at least stay at home. Or if she was smart and is married to the father of their children, she stays home until they are old enough for school. The only way to make it look like the scheme is working is for the government to steal more money to cover up the the side effects of its regulations. Note that this does not in any way eliminate the stupidity, it only masks it.
That 3:1 ratio sounds oh so enlightened and compassionate and "for the safety of the little ones" but it is actually quite mad. The only people it "works" for are the upper classes who earn so much more than a daycare worker that 1/2 of the cost of one is a small fraction of their earning power, the very self centered bastards who passed the law to ensure the "best" for their kid while feeling oh so superiorly compassionate. But since the vast majority of the population will be earning between 50% and 200% of the cost of a daycare worker, it can't possibly scale. You are simply too dumb to see why, probably won't even after I have rubbed your nose in it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 23 2018, @12:17AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday May 21 2018, @01:37PM (16 children)
My wife and I can't afford cell phones, so we have A SINGLE land line: what we CAN afford.
When did cell phones become a necessity?
Our daughter THINKS she can afford a kid and daycare, but is still saving and budgeting: compare that with the "He my babby daddy" generation that says "Ima single momma.....gimme gimme!"
Yuh huh! Entitlement.
Some day we may live in interesting times and all these entitlements will disappear and so will the weak and stupid (unfortunately???)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Informative) by Oakenshield on Monday May 21 2018, @02:00PM (11 children)
Just a FYI: My cell phone cost averages about $24 per month, taxes included. I have Google Fi as my provider and I use about 150MB of data per month, mostly Google Maps in the car. I provide both my kids a cell phone for about $17 per month each (taxes included) through Republic Wireless with no data at all. We all have unlimited calling and texting across the US. All combined, I still pay less than what I used to pay the bastards at AT&T for my unlimited local landline plan with a handful of long distance calls. Checking AT&T's site, it would cost me $62+taxes for an unlimited local/long distance landline today. I no longer have a paid landline.
If you pay $34 or more for your landline, you can have two cell phones with unlimited calling for the same or less cost and jettison your landline. You don't have to sell your soul to Verizon or AT&T.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday May 21 2018, @02:16PM (3 children)
This.
Also worth noting, more and more services are online only theses days. Increasingly difficult to access your bank, since they are closing branches, reducing opening hours and reducing call centre staff/ quality.
More and more government services are moving online, and the offices where you used to access them (post offices, job centres etc) are being closed.
Rising car ownership costs mean that going to buy groceries in person at the supermarket is becoming less and less accessible. Sure, you could walk to the local corner shop, but then you have to pay 20% more for your food. Online shopping will eventually become a necessity.
Point is, internet access in the modern (first) world is less and less a luxury and more and more a necessity. Without it you risk becoming completely marginalised, pushed to the fringes of society. Therefore I don't begrudge the younger generation their phones. You can't expect people to live they way you did when you were a youngster with an onion on your belt, the world has changed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @02:33PM (2 children)
I don't have a car, do most of my shopping online, work online...spend most of my life online, but don't have a cellphone. Split among roommates, my share of the internet bill comes to less than $20/month.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday May 21 2018, @02:59PM (1 child)
Well that's very nice for you, but that's just not how the youngsters do it.
They don't see the point in buying / owning a computer + screen +landline + home broadband when they live in tiny, overpriced apartments where every bit of money and every square centimetre of space is at a premium. Why tie yourself to a box and a cable in your home when you could be looking stuff up on the move? Being able to access local information (bus times, weather, business opening times...) when out and about is really handy. One little gadget in your pocket (and you can pick up a refurbed, low end smartphone very cheap now) and a monthly (preferably sim-only) payment for both phone and internet and that's all you need. If I were in their shoes, it's exactly what I'd do.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @01:53AM
In the words of master Yoda: "That is why they fail."
(Score: 1) by suburbanitemediocrity on Monday May 21 2018, @02:37PM (4 children)
Get a Garmin GPS. It doesn't rely on subscriptions.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Monday May 21 2018, @02:44PM (3 children)
I had a TomTom and gave it to my daughter when she was going cross country. Unless you have "free" map updates, it goes out of date fairly quickly. Besides, I actually use Waze for the police reports.
(Score: 1) by suburbanitemediocrity on Tuesday May 22 2018, @02:03AM (2 children)
My 8 year old never updated GPS has only been wrong, maybe 3 times and I've done a couple dozen cross country trips (3/4 corners and both coasts)and nothing that I couldn't figure out myself with a few seconds of critical thinking skills, eg, don't turn down the oneway street. That was Seattle. The other one I remember was a missing road in Nebraska, but I was going the right direction and it sorted itself out in an hour.
They don't build roads that fast and I don't see where it "goes out of date fairly quickly." Up until ten years ago, people used paper maps and billions upon billions of successful trips have been made. Talk about missing, outdated information.
(Score: 2) by Oakenshield on Tuesday May 22 2018, @02:35PM (1 child)
I guess they aren't building (or renaming streets) very fast near you. When I started having frequent trouble entering "non-existent" addresses which Google had no trouble finding, I dropped my TomTom in a drawer. The subscription cost to update maps was close to what I paid in the first place. I gave it to my daughter because although she primarily used her phone for maps, she anticipated lots of places on the road where she would have no cell coverage.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 24 2018, @02:27AM
Welcome to most of the US.
(Score: 1, Troll) by SanityCheck on Monday May 21 2018, @09:17PM (1 child)
or
The cost is hidden. You think you use 150 MB, but in fact you provide them with 150MB of product they sell.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @02:38PM
I see your modded a troll but i think your just a apple fanboi faggot
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 21 2018, @05:21PM (1 child)
Another poster already addressed the cheap ways to have a cell phone. I'll just mention that for a single person, the "break-even" point to lose the landline and have a cell phone because it was cheaper happened around 2002. That's assuming (like me) you may have family and friends in other states so long-distance calls were common. Mind you, I wasn't making a lot of them, but the cost added up, and landlines weren't cheap even back then. So, in 2002, I could get unlimited night and weekend minutes for around $35/month with taxes (as I recall). And the phone was "free" with a contract -- all I needed was a pretty basic model with decent battery life. And I got a new "free" one every 2 years. At some point I got off that plan and went to cheaper and cheaper plans with no contracts, and now it's cheaper to buy my own phones (which I never pay more than ~$100 for, even reasonably decent "smart" models... if you just want a phone, there are a lot of real cheap options).
So, it's been over 15 years that the math made sense for a single person to have a cell phone instead of a landline. The math for a couple to both have cell phones has shifted maybe in the past 5 years or so, though it depends on your market and how much you pay for long-distance.
Of course, I assume your post is directed mostly at people with excessive data plans, iPhones, etc. And yes, the costs can add up exorbitantly. It's very easy to pay over $100/month for a cell phone with a lot of data, especially when that cell phone is a particularly expensive model that "comes free" with a long contract.
I'd say about 2 or 3 years ago. If it was 3 years ago, I'd probably have agreed with you and called out that bit from the summary about cell phones. I actually dislike cell phones and only switched to one because it was cheaper than a landline initially. I avoided carrying mine with me (except in special circumstances) until my then-wife forced me to. Although I have a "smart phone" because they've become relatively cheap, I rarely make use of features other than the phone except for long trips (with maps) and occasionally when I need to check email or texts and am not near wi-fi.
So, yeah, you mostly can deal without one if you really want to. Though for most people, it is a hardship, since so much socialization now happens through social media and online. Not participating continuously makes one a relative "hermit" in this era.
And yet, I still wouldn't call that a "necessity." But in the past few years, cell phones have become so integrated that it's starting to become tough to deal without them. For example, just a few days ago, my septuagenarian mother presented me with a new tablet she had bought for herself to replace an ancient iPad that she mostly uses to do jigsaw puzzle apps and a few other silly things like that. It was a much cheaper Android tablet, and she somehow managed to find a decent model even though she knows nothing about technology.
Anyhow, point is that I went to setup the darn thing for her, and the first thing Android of course prompts you for is a Google account. She didn't have a Google account. So I went to set one up for her. It said, "Prove you're not a robot." How? The ONLY option given was to enter a phone number to text her a verification code. My parents have a pay-as-you-go very cheap cell phone they only use for emergencies, but it was in the car. And they've never texted in their lives.
Now, you could skip that step, but then she wouldn't be able to access the Google Play store and download jigsaw puzzle apps, which is pretty much mostly what she's going to do with the stupid tablet. And if you try to do setup later, it does the same stuff. IF I went through Chrome and set up a Google account that way, I got other options beyond the cell phone option, but how would an older person know to try that?
That sort of thing has started to become more common in the past 5 years, and so I'd say in the past 2-3 years it has become increasingly difficult to deal without a cell phone. Lots of banks and other essential services are instituting 2-factor authentication, and many of those services prefer to use texting (and I've occasionally seen ones which basically make it very difficult to use options other than a text-message verification). Of course, you CAN set up other apps to receive texts in ways, but you have to know how. And if you use a phone authentication method and only have a landline, it means you won't be able to access your accounts and such unless you're at home.
For security alone, given the number of breaches that are common these days, a cell phone has become really helpful. And increasingly (as with the Google Play setup I mentioned), companies and devices and apps assume you have a cell phone in order to provide basic functionality.
Yes, it's possible to live without a cell phone, just like it's possible to live without a credit card. But the amount of inconvenience it can cause is increasing -- and one thing poor people often don't have is a lot of spare time to deal with unnecessary inconveniences like that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @05:58PM
Easy to say, "cut the cord" for land line. But we both work from home and live near the edge of the 'burbs where cell phone reception is crap. We have one smart phone and use it as a second line. The audio quality of the land line is much superior and, while expensive, it seems that we get what we pay for.
At least for now, the land line also works when power is out (we are in an area with ice storms) and the cell network doesn't stay up all that long...(assuming we keep the cell phone itself charged with a car adapter).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 21 2018, @11:29PM (1 child)
When everyone started assuming that you have a cell phone, too.
I didn't have a cell phone, until about five years ago now. I took my car into the shop for maintenance. Said would take a couple hours, routine stuff, so I just waited in their waiting room. It was a nice one, so no big deal.
Eventually of course, I had to visit the restroom; their restroom was having trouble with the fan in there, it was very very noisy. Still, just a few minutes bother, and it beat having to hold it. I returned to the waiting room, hoping my car would be ready soon.
After a total of three and half hours had gone by, and watching people who'd arrived after me depart, I went back out to the counter -- only to see through the big windows that my car was sitting there ready to go. I went up and paid, got my keys, etc. and remarked that I wish they had told me it was ready since it said right on the work order that I was there at the shop waiting. They replied that they'd paged me and left a message on my cell phone. I told them I didn't have a cell phone, and got the usual strange look, but I just shrugged and went home.
To discover the message that my car was ready on my home answering machine. It was left about the time I went to the restroom, so they had paged me, but because of the fan I hadn't heard it. They assumed that everyone has a cell phone and it's on their person, so of course calling it and leaving a message was the best way to reach me, rather than paging me again. I didn't go back to that shop... but I did finally give in and get a damn cell phone.
Because it's more difficult to deal with systems, even stupid ones like a car repair shop workflow, if you're an outlier from what "everyone" expects and assumes. Which sucks, but there it is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 22 2018, @02:06AM
Maybe for people lacking life skills.