Author Topic: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...  (Read 21721 times)

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4726
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #50 on: December 03, 2015, 08:35:05 PM »
got the appraisal back at 150% of what we paid (even though we haven't done any substantial renovation) because I carefully and purposefully bought in one of the fastest-gentrifying neighborhoods in the city.

(My only regret is that we didn't buy a more expensive house, and/or a duplex/triplex/quad so that we could house-hack, but I digress...)


Great, so what you're saying is that you used a program designed for the working class that in principle you shouldn't have qualified for to instead displace them out of their neighborhood? Hope you love the lower moral ground you stand on.

On the contrary; the program was intended to stabilize neighborhoods (one of the requirements is that you have to owner-occupy the property for 10 years or you have to pay it back), and people like me buying meant it was working as designed. In fact, I'd say that my wife and I are even more of a success story than usual for the program, considering how involved we are with volunteering and such.

I should also point out that although the income limits are a little bit lower than the median income, you could use the program to buy up to about a quarter-million dollar house (which is a lot in Atlanta), so we're really talking about a program applicable for people well into the middle class here.

Finally, yes: I'm entirely comfortable with the morality of the situation. I didn't make the rules; I just followed them. And we bought our house in a standard full-market-value sale (not a short sale or foreclosure) so the lady we bought it from was only "displaced" of her own free will.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #51 on: December 03, 2015, 08:42:19 PM »
Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

I wonder if that is a state by state situation. Folks here get bent out of shape about alot of stuff. I could imagine them getting flustered about Sex-Ed. Will ask my teen if they are getting the info.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4726
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #52 on: December 03, 2015, 09:46:23 PM »
Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

I wonder if that is a state by state situation. Folks here get bent out of shape about alot of stuff. I could imagine them getting flustered about Sex-Ed. Will ask my teen if they are getting the info.

State-by-state, and probably district-by-district. I guarantee sex-ed is very different between most of the metro Atlanta school systems versus some rural county school system.

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #53 on: December 03, 2015, 09:47:42 PM »
got the appraisal back at 150% of what we paid (even though we haven't done any substantial renovation) because I carefully and purposefully bought in one of the fastest-gentrifying neighborhoods in the city.

(My only regret is that we didn't buy a more expensive house, and/or a duplex/triplex/quad so that we could house-hack, but I digress...)


Great, so what you're saying is that you used a program designed for the working class that in principle you shouldn't have qualified for to instead displace them out of their neighborhood? Hope you love the lower moral ground you stand on.

On the contrary; the program was intended to stabilize neighborhoods (one of the requirements is that you have to owner-occupy the property for 10 years or you have to pay it back), and people like me buying meant it was working as designed. In fact, I'd say that my wife and I are even more of a success story than usual for the program, considering how involved we are with volunteering and such.

I should also point out that although the income limits are a little bit lower than the median income, you could use the program to buy up to about a quarter-million dollar house (which is a lot in Atlanta), so we're really talking about a program applicable for people well into the middle class here.

Finally, yes: I'm entirely comfortable with the morality of the situation. I didn't make the rules; I just followed them. And we bought our house in a standard full-market-value sale (not a short sale or foreclosure) so the lady we bought it from was only "displaced" of her own free will.

1) I'm insanely jealous that a $250,000 house is a middle class house in Atlanta and now I want to move because of it, a bit. Here that's the lowest end of a studio condo available in the city limits. 1-bedroom if you're lucky. (unless it's part of a land trust.)

2) I was mostly commenting on the poor taste of gloating about buying into a gentrifying neighborhood that you don't have family connections to when you're not working class (engineers /= working class), not the policy goals of a particular program. And if you know anything about displacement, you DO realize that it isn't usually "by force", right? (Key exceptions here excluded for lack of space.)

Homeowners sell their properties because of rising property values and then create ethnic/racial/working class enclaves in further-out  non-gentrified neighborhoods. Gentrification is about the commodification of the "coolness" and "newness" of a neighborhood that has established communities for years. In the case of  historically black cities like Atlanta, this is usually black well-established neighborhoods that suddenly become "hip" to gentrifiers and acquire dog parks, yoga studios, high-end ice cream shops, coffee shops, and lose their original core institutions due to owners selling for market-rate prices to gentrifiers. They lose community centers, local pubs, barber shops, ethnic restaurants, and other core pillars of the community due to changing demographics and due to rising property rates that entice landowners to sell.

You're just complicit in the march that so many of us are part of. It's merely gloating about why it was good business decision to use those benefits not originally designed for you to drive the working class out of their community that's poor taste.

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4726
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #54 on: December 03, 2015, 10:13:00 PM »
1) I'm insanely jealous that a $250,000 house is a middle class house in Atlanta and now I want to move because of it, a bit. Here that's the lowest end of a studio condo available in the city limits. 1-bedroom if you're lucky. (unless it's part of a land trust.)

2) I was mostly commenting on the poor taste of gloating about buying into a gentrifying neighborhood that you don't have family connections to when you're not working class (engineers /= working class), not the policy goals of a particular program. And if you know anything about displacement, you DO realize that it isn't usually "by force", right? (Key exceptions here excluded for lack of space.)

Homeowners sell their properties because of rising property values and then create ethnic/racial/working class enclaves in further-out  non-gentrified neighborhoods. Gentrification is about the commodification of the "coolness" and "newness" of a neighborhood that has established communities for years. In the case of  historically black cities like Atlanta, this is usually black well-established neighborhoods that suddenly become "hip" to gentrifiers and acquire dog parks, yoga studios, high-end ice cream shops, coffee shops, and lose their original core institutions due to owners selling for market-rate prices to gentrifiers. They lose community centers, local pubs, barber shops, ethnic restaurants, and other core pillars of the community due to changing demographics and due to rising property rates that entice landowners to sell.

You're just complicit in the march that so many of us are part of. It's merely gloating about why it was good business decision to use those benefits not originally designed for you to drive the working class out of their community that's poor taste.

To point #1: I'd say a middle-class house actually starts somewhere around the $100K mark, especially outside the city limits (and if you're talking lower-middle-class as opposed to upper-middle-class). Unlike some metro areas (e.g. LA), the City of Atlanta proper is pretty small, comprising only about 10% of the population of the metro area. The vast majority of middle-class Atlantans live in varying degrees of suburbia, even if said suburbs would have been in the city proper in a less Balkanized area.

To point #2: Fair enough. I take a little bit of issue with your characterization of Atlanta as "historically-black" -- it's more like "historically-divided." It became blacker during the '60s and '70s due to integration/white flight, and now the racial mix is moving back towards the pre-'50s norm. The other interesting thing is that my particular neighborhood has (as far as I can tell) pretty much always been one of the most integrated, or at least, segregated at a scale smaller than a census block or whatever. The exact percentage has varied, but it's probably never gone farther than 70%/30% in either direction.

(By the way: my wife is mixed-race and an artist; does that make it better?)

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #55 on: December 04, 2015, 07:19:55 AM »
Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

I wonder if that is a state by state situation. Folks here get bent out of shape about alot of stuff. I could imagine them getting flustered about Sex-Ed. Will ask my teen if they are getting the info.

State-by-state, and probably district-by-district. I guarantee sex-ed is very different between most of the metro Atlanta school systems versus some rural county school system.
There are still entire states (like Texas) where all they get is "sex is scary, don't do it".

Unsurprisingly, they f*ck like bunnies and now have epidemics of pregnancy and disease. But it's okay because Jesus.

vivophoenix

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 429
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #56 on: December 04, 2015, 07:33:09 AM »
1) I'm insanely jealous that a $250,000 house is a middle class house in Atlanta and now I want to move because of it, a bit. Here that's the lowest end of a studio condo available in the city limits. 1-bedroom if you're lucky. (unless it's part of a land trust.)

2) I was mostly commenting on the poor taste of gloating about buying into a gentrifying neighborhood that you don't have family connections to when you're not working class (engineers /= working class), not the policy goals of a particular program. And if you know anything about displacement, you DO realize that it isn't usually "by force", right? (Key exceptions here excluded for lack of space.)

Homeowners sell their properties because of rising property values and then create ethnic/racial/working class enclaves in further-out  non-gentrified neighborhoods. Gentrification is about the commodification of the "coolness" and "newness" of a neighborhood that has established communities for years. In the case of  historically black cities like Atlanta, this is usually black well-established neighborhoods that suddenly become "hip" to gentrifiers and acquire dog parks, yoga studios, high-end ice cream shops, coffee shops, and lose their original core institutions due to owners selling for market-rate prices to gentrifiers. They lose community centers, local pubs, barber shops, ethnic restaurants, and other core pillars of the community due to changing demographics and due to rising property rates that entice landowners to sell.

You're just complicit in the march that so many of us are part of. It's merely gloating about why it was good business decision to use those benefits not originally designed for you to drive the working class out of their community that's poor taste.


(By the way: my wife is mixed-race and an artist; does that make it better?)

only if you let the more ethnic side of her family use your bathroom. then you get the 'i'm not a part of the problem' guilt free special we are offering today.

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #57 on: December 04, 2015, 09:03:04 AM »

To point #1: I'd say a middle-class house actually starts somewhere around the $100K mark, especially outside the city limits (and if you're talking lower-middle-class as opposed to upper-middle-class). Unlike some metro areas (e.g. LA), the City of Atlanta proper is pretty small, comprising only about 10% of the population of the metro area. The vast majority of middle-class Atlantans live in varying degrees of suburbia, even if said suburbs would have been in the city proper in a less Balkanized area.
Oh my god. There's nothing for $100K here unless you move to an extremely rural area or it's a former meth house that requires substantial investment in cleanup. Gosh, now I'm remembering why I don't look at real estate prices in the rest of the country. Good thing I like Portland. Otherwise I'd be moving to your neighborhood too :-P


To point #2: Fair enough. I take a little bit of issue with your characterization of Atlanta as "historically-black" -- it's more like "historically-divided." It became blacker during the '60s and '70s due to integration/white flight, and now the racial mix is moving back towards the pre-'50s norm. The other interesting thing is that my particular neighborhood has (as far as I can tell) pretty much always been one of the most integrated, or at least, segregated at a scale smaller than a census block or whatever. The exact percentage has varied, but it's probably never gone farther than 70%/30% in either direction.
I'm sure you know a lot more about Atlanta history than me. I was speaking in broader terms about gentrification so I'll concede all of that to you.


(By the way: my wife is mixed-race and an artist; does that make it better?)
....Kiiiiiiinnnndaaa. When people talk about gentrification, it's more about roots in a neighborhood than simply skin color (there's plenty of black hipsters and yuppies that are still gentrifiers in black neighborhoods), and - as you pointed out- segregated neighborhoods aren't a good thing either. This is where gentrification just gets frustratingly complicated.

Economic eviction from neighborhoods is the root of the issue- working class people that don't recognize their neighborhood because it becomes "hip" to live in. Their community has left because property values have led to house flipping, unaffordable rents, and public housing being moved away (HUD requires the portfolios of land in housing projects be managed for a profit, so once a neighborhood gentrifies, usually they have to sell the property and use the money to buy into a less expensive neighborhood.) Gentrification also isn't the social justice issue as much as displacement is- so in the case of your neighborhood, perhaps there wasn't an established community (sounds like they were trying to stabilize the neighborhood) and you're not responsible for displacement. Oh gentrification, nothing about you is simple.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17438
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #58 on: December 04, 2015, 09:24:08 AM »
Damn you gentrification.  It's terrible when increased property values mean that poor people can sell their heavily appreciated homes.  Better to keep everyone poor, the drug dealers on the streets, and property values depressed than deal with the horrors of yoga studios and dog parks.  :P

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #59 on: December 04, 2015, 09:30:39 AM »
Damn you gentrification.  It's terrible when increased property values mean that poor people can sell their heavily appreciated homes.  Better to keep everyone poor, the drug dealers on the streets, and property values depressed than deal with the horrors of yoga studios and dog parks.  :P
Remember that most poor people don't own homes, homeownership has long been the provenance of the middle-class and up. The homeowners in many low-income neighborhoods are often slumlords, who then sell the properties and the properties get flipped, evicting the tenants. Some residents (owner-occupiers) benefit from the rising property values when they sell, but many residents get economically or no-cause evicted.

Some neighborhoods that get gentrified are terrible neighborhoods with drug dealers, slumlords. But many are simple lower-income neighborhoods with black and brown people that are reasonably safe and filled with things like inexpensive taquerias, black churches with small congregations, bodegas, head start programs, day cares, that then get driven out to be replaced by indoor 'dog gyms' and yoga studios.

Note I said there's plenty of benefits to gentrification itself, particularly in unsafe neighborhoods- it's the displacement and losing of culture that is the social justice issue.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #60 on: December 04, 2015, 09:33:07 AM »
I don't know about other cultures. I would think it's the same everywhere. A lot of other cultures also pass on businesses to the next generation. Is this best for their children? I would argue that the majority are enabled and/or would have had a lot more potential without it.
Well, if you go back to America's earlier roots, we weren't different:  Middle and upper earners owned businesses (many of them farms), and those businesses were often passed on to the next generation.  And I don't think they were spoiled brats because of it. 

However, today we've shifted to a different paradigm:  Most people in the upper class get there /stay there through education -- it's true for me and my husband, and I think it's true for most people on this board.  And education isn't something you can pass on to your children; you can help them through college, but that's more like recreating the wheel for each new generation.
The idea was to improve whatever it was you got, so you'd have a way to set up your own kids. That worked in an agrarian and even an industrial economy, but it doesn't work in a knowledge based economy unless you're a shareholder in an IPO.

Only recently has it become possible to earn an upper-class or upper-middle-class income and to amass significant amounts of wealth without owning the business you work for. The university-education based system of professions is part of what makes it possible and I'm glad for that. I don't want to imagine someone apprenticing a twelve-year-old to be a brain surgeon. The up-side to a profession is that it's a way to climb the socio-economic ladder. The down-side is that there's no way to pass on the means of income production.

I had been thinking that the widening wealth gap in the last few decades had been due to things like changes in tax rates and pro-corporate court rulings, but now I'm wondering if this might be a significant factor too.

On the plus side, the possibility for social mobility created in an profession-based and education-based economy was a key factor in allowing capitalism to out-compete Marxism.

Here's an idea I've never heard discussed by economists or historians; feel free to kick at it a bit and see if it holds together. The idea is... a knowledge based economy promotes socioeconomic mobility and pervasive wealth inequality at the same time, but people tolerate the wealth inequality because they like the upward mobility.

Definitely there's upward mobility associated with knowledge, but unless the person living out the Horatio Alger story stashes a lot of the cash so that the lifestyle is backed by investments or a transferable business of some kind, his or her standard of living is tied 100% to his or her ability to work and earn an income. Lose that (such as through illness), and everything collapses like a house of cards. So there's downward socioeconomic mobility too. Since so many people insist on living like factory workers of the 1800's and spending every cent as quickly as it comes in, even high income earners are often only one paycheck from homelessness. But, as a group, we're willing to tolerate the risk of downward mobility for large numbers of people if we believe it's a necessary sacrifice we must make to get the upward mobility.

The knowledge economy also hasn't produced lasting wealth for very many people. Unlike a farm or shop, which can be passed down from one generation to the next, a job as a hospital surgeon or aerospace engineer can't be. Each generation has to spend years reinventing the wheel and becoming qualified to take on a similar earning role. People who retire are also living longer and spending down their assets for end-of-life care. So, with little to no accumulated wealth being passed down from one generation to the next, each generation of income-earners or professionals has to make its own way. Contrast this with the generations of hotel owners or store chain owners who no longer have to work, because the businesses make their money for them. They can be FIRE at a much earlier age, without having to go through decades of school or career training, and can set about accumulating more. Thus the wealth increases, one generation after the next, unless of course the people who inherit it are utter fuck-ups.

Now for the capitalism-versus-Marxism angle. Communism looked attractive during the industrial economy because the owner class and the worker class really were separate groups of people, and there was no opportunity for mobility. I'd venture to say that it wasn't the inequality that offended people so much as the fact that the people who had less really didn't have any good way to get more. So, forcibly redistributing ownership of the means of production had to sound like a really, really good idea (especially to people who had no fucking clue how to actually run a factory, farm, or business, and who therefore proceeded to run it into the ground after the leveling initiative was complete). But when there's a way to get a lot of mobility and access to a higher standard of living without all the drama-- as there was because of the knowledge based economy-- violent revolution sounded less attractive. It's a lot easier and more fun to go to college, and there's less personal risk.

It wasn't the Korean war or the Vietnam war that saved the world from a lengthy and disappointing experiment with Communism (which is inherently flawed due to its farcical reliance on human altruism, but humanity didn't know that at the time). It was the GI Bill and Sallie Mae in the United States, and federally subsidized university programs in Europe. Both provided a path to education and professional-class incomes for large numbers of people. Education created enough social mobility opportunity to interest the ambitious, and that was enough to provide a relief valve.

Anyway, people on other threads here have noted that a degree isn't what it used to be. Between student loan debt and other factors, college and university education isn't a reliable path to a higher standard of living. I'd venture to guess that the collapse of that path to social mobility, and the impermanence of wealth created by professional incomes, poses a very credible and long-term threat to the free market economy.

zephyr911

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3620
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Northern Alabama
  • I'm just happy to be here. \m/ ^_^ \m/
    • Pinhook Development LLC
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #61 on: December 04, 2015, 10:03:41 AM »
Cherry-picking for brevity:
Here's an idea I've never heard discussed by economists or historians; feel free to kick at it a bit and see if it holds together. The idea is... a knowledge based economy promotes socioeconomic mobility and pervasive wealth inequality at the same time, but people tolerate the wealth inequality because they like the upward mobility.
IMHO, it's nearly self-evident. As Steinbeck put it, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires." Economic mobility enables this self-image to persist, and I would argue that even the perception of mobility is enough. Believing I can get to the top not only makes being pissed on at the bottom tolerable - it can even help me rationalize full-throated support for policies that won't help me till I get there. Along those lines, an old friend of mine used to joke about "all the unemployed plumbers who want to repeal the estate tax".
Quote
But, as a group, we're willing to tolerate the risk of downward mobility for large numbers of people if we believe it's a necessary sacrifice we must make to get the upward mobility.
Doesn't this rely on the assumption of a zero-sum game?
Yes, increasing the money supply just produces inflation, but directing more of our income toward durable goods and less toward ephemeral consumer shit could mean higher average quality of life - tangible wealth, if you will - for everyone.
Quote
Anyway, people on other threads here have noted that a degree isn't what it used to be. Between student loan debt and other factors, college and university education isn't a reliable path to a higher standard of living. I'd venture to guess that the collapse of that path to social mobility, and the impermanence of wealth created by professional incomes, poses a very credible and long-term threat to the free market economy.
I think a bigger problem is the decline in quality of the average student (via increasing enrollment numbers at the expense of lower standards) and the employability of the average degree (as emphasis on exploration and enjoyment has supplanted employability). I don't think a straight-A student with a newly minted STEM degree is worth less than they used to be - if anything hinders that kind of graduate, it's the older workforce dragging their feet on retirement because they raided their home equity for toys in their 50s.

maco

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #62 on: December 04, 2015, 10:41:05 AM »
I'm not saying 13 year olds don't get pregnant, but they are very rare.
And when it does happen, I suspect you're looking at incest the vast majority of the time. Some older relative has been abusing the kid for years, and suddenly it becomes possible for irrefutable evidence to appear in the form of pregnancy as soon as that first period hits.

"Fathering" semantics aside, for some reason, this thought process was more interesting to me than the actual OP.... lol. I have friends who have had children less than 1 year apart. Just need one of those to be twins and BANG!
The twins in my family were born 12 months after me.

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 840
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #63 on: December 04, 2015, 10:41:46 AM »
Damn you gentrification.  It's terrible when increased property values mean that poor people can sell their heavily appreciated homes.  Better to keep everyone poor, the drug dealers on the streets, and property values depressed than deal with the horrors of yoga studios and dog parks.  :P

We blame people with money for leaving the cities and ruining everything, then we blame them for coming back and ruining everything.

maco

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 418
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #64 on: December 04, 2015, 10:48:21 AM »
Back on topic:

I got a mortgage tax credit when I bought an inexpensive condo in my mid-twenties while I was still a starving graduate students. It was the only reason I could make the numbers work. Rather than default, I finished my Ph.D., got a high paying job, sold the condo at a profit a decade later, etc. It was not nearly as a great of a deal as the ~$30K tax-deferred I stash now, though, and it was not nearly as great of a deal as the fact that I only pay 15% tax on my capital gains.

But the young lady in the article should have her bit of the advantageous programs that we all use to our advantage. Landlords, especially, benefit from all kinds of tax writes off like depreciation, deductions when unoccupied, etc. Talk about a hand out! Sure, there is some work involved with being a landlord, but most of it boils down to sitting on your ass month after month while others pay your mortgages for you. I can make most rental properties legally look like a loss on tax papers despite the high actual cash flow. So an argument about others getting breaks and govt handouts from a landlord is particularly nauseating. That is all.
This, right here, is the entire point of the game Monopoly.

Yeah, you know how Monopoly (if played without house rules) results in a fight and a table flip? That's because it was created specifically to show how broken the landlording system is.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #65 on: December 06, 2015, 04:36:04 PM »
Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

I wonder if that is a state by state situation. Folks here get bent out of shape about alot of stuff. I could imagine them getting flustered about Sex-Ed. Will ask my teen if they are getting the info.

State-by-state, and probably district-by-district. I guarantee sex-ed is very different between most of the metro Atlanta school systems versus some rural county school system.
There are still entire states (like Texas) where all they get is "sex is scary, don't do it".

Unsurprisingly, they f*ck like bunnies and now have epidemics of pregnancy and disease. But it's okay because Jesus.

THAT sounds familiar... ;)

nobodyspecial

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
  • Location: Land above the land of the free
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #66 on: December 06, 2015, 07:56:59 PM »
There are still entire states (like Texas) where all they get is "sex is scary, don't do it".

Unsurprisingly, they f*ck like bunnies and now have epidemics of pregnancy and disease. But it's okay because Jesus.
Well if you can get pregnant without sex (ask Jesus) then you may as well fsck like bunnies anyway !

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17438
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #67 on: December 07, 2015, 06:00:55 AM »
Jesus got pregnant without having sex???

Jack

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4726
  • Location: Atlanta, GA
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #68 on: December 07, 2015, 09:25:34 AM »
Good thing I like Portland. Otherwise I'd be moving to your neighborhood too :-P

Maybe I shouldn't mention that my neighborhood is pretty much the most "Portland-like" of any in Atlanta, then. ; )

Remember that most poor people don't own homes, homeownership has long been the provenance of the middle-class and up. The homeowners in many low-income neighborhoods are often slumlords, who then sell the properties and the properties get flipped, evicting the tenants. Some residents (owner-occupiers) benefit from the rising property values when they sell, but many residents get economically or no-cause evicted.

I'm not sure how prevalent this pattern is, but in a lot of the "bad" neighborhoods in Atlanta, the houses that the gang members or other criminals live in are owned by their elderly grandparents, who bought back when the neighborhood was middle-class.

Of course, when the elderly person dies and their heirs (who moved to the suburbs long ago) inherit it, they certainly don't want to live there and the paper value of the property is destroyed, so they quit paying the taxes and then the slumlord/real-estate speculator (namely, this guy) gets it.

(To explain the apparent contradiction between "criminal grandchildren" and "heirs in the suburbs:" the heirs were the high-achieving siblings; the criminals are the children of the fuck-up siblings.)



iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4125
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...m
« Reply #69 on: December 07, 2015, 09:47:18 AM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.

It's an old chestnut that teens have babies because they don't know or have access to birth control.
The research shows that they are able to use birth control, they have access to it.

The reality is that in the culture of poverty, children provide value to their lives. It is a conscious choice of  poor young women to have babies out of wedlock. Some research suggests that having babies young and out of wedlock doesn't really affect the socioeconomic position of these women anyway. In other words, they are making logical decisions within their own culture. Because it doesn't make sense to the mustachioed doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

This is very hard for those of middle class values to hear and grok.

For a good view into this culture see the book Promises I Can Keep.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2015, 09:52:02 AM by iris lily »

monstermonster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Age: 33
  • Location: The People's Republic of Portland (Oregon)
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...m
« Reply #70 on: December 07, 2015, 11:24:50 AM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.

It's an old chestnut that teens have babies because they don't know or have access to birth control.
The research shows that they are able to use birth control, they have access to it.

The reality is that in the culture of poverty, children provide value to their lives. It is a conscious choice of  poor young women to have babies out of wedlock. Some research suggests that having babies young and out of wedlock doesn't really affect the socioeconomic position of these women anyway. In other words, they are making logical decisions within their own culture. Because it doesn't make sense to the mustachioed doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

This is very hard for those of middle class values to hear and grok.

For a good view into this culture see the book Promises I Can Keep.
Purely anecdotal but, I worked (as a live-in social worker, so I also lived with my clients and their kids) in a shelter for young mothers (18-25) for years and then at a homeless youth day center, and plenty/most of the women there were not pregnant or parenting because they made a choice to get pregnant. Many had children as a product of rape in the foster system or homes with alcoholism/meth abuse, or because they were never taught about birth control or had access to it (our state required parental notification and nearly none of these girls had coverage on Medicaid after age 12 before ACA). I'd say at least half of their baby daddies were supposedly trusted adults. Some of the youth I worked with had children so they qualified for more foodstamps and for medicaid so they could get their teeth fixed (meth really fucks up teeth) while pregnant (back then you only got medicaid for the 9 months you were pregnant.)

In addition to my 5 years of anecdotal experience, the data supports the idea that while social connection/fulfillment is a reason for teen parenting, it is not the only reason by a longshot. Like most things, sweeping conclusions about individual's motivations are challenging. Maybe if our foster system wasn't so fucked up and we didn't have a school-to-prison pipeline, this wouldn't be such an issue and more pregnancies would be by choice in youth.

I'll check out the book, it might help inform my conversations with youth I work with. Thanks for the recommendations.

nobodyspecial

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1468
  • Location: Land above the land of the free
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #71 on: December 07, 2015, 02:58:11 PM »
Jesus got pregnant without having sex???
Well that was his mother's excuse

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4858
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...m
« Reply #72 on: December 07, 2015, 03:02:29 PM »
Girl at subway can't go to school to get a better job, because she has two work two jobs to support the three kids she fathered with two different men at 16. Rich peoples fault, lol. It's other peoples fault, not hers, so let's take from responsible people who made better decisions and give her a free house, car, phone, health care, food, heat and education. Ok...

I think you need to take a biology class.
Technically possible if you account for two of the children being twins, but odds are it would be a vary unlikely scenario. Of course, we could just as easily point out that the vast majority of public schools don't have sex ed courses that cover birth control options other than abstinence.

This is really easy to understand, if Bearded Man has actually talked to the woman who works at Subway in-depth (which somehow I doubt.) She had two baby daddies, one of them gave her two kids. Unfortunately, many many young women end up pregnant at 13 (due to poverty, poor access to health care, shitty foster care system, no access to family planning, and no sex education) so it's entirely possible she's had 3 kids in 3 year's time.

It's an old chestnut that teens have babies because they don't know or have access to birth control.
The research shows that they are able to use birth control, they have access to it.

The reality is that in the culture of poverty, children provide value to their lives. It is a conscious choice of  poor young women to have babies out of wedlock. Some research suggests that having babies young and out of wedlock doesn't really affect the socioeconomic position of these women anyway. In other words, they are making logical decisions within their own culture. Because it doesn't make sense to the mustachioed doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

This is very hard for those of middle class values to hear and grok.

For a good view into this culture see the book Promises I Can Keep.
Citation please?  Because that statement is directly opposite what was taught in my psychology of sexuality, and they had citations.  Granted, I did not check them and this was almost ten years ago, but  I'd be surprised if this was true.

tobitonic

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #73 on: January 14, 2016, 08:59:46 PM »

Wrong.  Birth control is absolutely taught in both middle school and high school today, and -- unlike the past -- we don't need parental permission any longer. 

Usually happy to lurk, but this is incorrect, at least for the US.  I will say birth control and sex education is getting better--states have started to decline Title V/State Abstinence Education Grant Program funding, but the current stats (pulled off  http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx):

All states are somehow involved in sex education for public schoolchildren.
As of Jan. 1, 2015:
22 states and the District of Columbia require public schools teach sex education (20 of which mandate sex education and HIV education).
33 states and the District of Columbia require students receive instruction about HIV/AIDS.
19 states require that if provided, sex education must be medically, factually or technically accurate. State definitions of “medically accurate" vary, from requiring that the department of health review curriculum for accuracy, to mandating that curriculum be based on information from “published authorities upon which medical professionals rely.”

Many states define parents’ rights concerning sexual education:
37 states and the District of Columbia require school districts to allow parental involvement in sexual education programs.
Three states require parental consent before a child can receive instruction.
35 states and the District of Columbia allow parents to opt-out on behalf of their children.


So depending on where someone is living there might be some classes that might be medically accurate that might not need parental permission to attend, but it doesn't come close to covering all states/schools in the US at this point.  From personal experience (also known as a lot of moving around as a kid) I'd say the northeast and west are probably the best with the south lagging behind--the focus on religion in MS/TX/TN tended to mean abstinence only was stressed to the point that if a teenager did decide to have sex he/she was afraid to even buy condoms for fear that one of the grocery tellers would see the parents in church--but obviously that's personal experience not actual data and in my case ~10 years old on top of that.  On the other hand, although teenage birth rates are declining as Mrs. Pete said, they're still the highest in southern states (http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-health-topics/reproductive-health/teen-pregnancy/trends.html) so it may not be so far off.

Thanks for bringing facts into this discussion. There's a lot we take for granted when belittling people for their situations.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #74 on: January 15, 2016, 10:23:41 AM »
An odd (to me) logic is a situation I've witnessed a number of times.

Teenager gets pregnant, struggles to get started in adult life, never gets anything beyond a HS education, family laments the poor choices made, etc.

Then cousins and siblings do the same thing.

You'd think one person would make a tough choice and the rest would witness and learn but they don't...

Another layer of "interesting" on this metaphorical cake is that everyone professes to be a God-fearing conservative and bad mouths people using welfare when I'm pretty sure they are quietly using these programs themselves.

???

onlykelsey

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2168
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #75 on: January 15, 2016, 10:56:18 AM »

There are still entire states (like Texas) where all they get is "sex is scary, don't do it".

Unsurprisingly, they f*ck like bunnies and now have epidemics of pregnancy and disease. But it's okay because Jesus.

This is so, so true.  I got very very basic sex education in Pennsylvania growing up, but when I moved to Texas I had to teach my liberal, not-Bible Bashing 32 year old boyfriend how to use condoms correctly because he had literally never learned. Thankfully he had had a lucky previous decade...

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4858
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #76 on: January 15, 2016, 11:26:13 AM »

There are still entire states (like Texas) where all they get is "sex is scary, don't do it".

Unsurprisingly, they f*ck like bunnies and now have epidemics of pregnancy and disease. But it's okay because Jesus.

This is so, so true.  I got very very basic sex education in Pennsylvania growing up, but when I moved to Texas I had to teach my liberal, not-Bible Bashing 32 year old boyfriend how to use condoms correctly because he had literally never learned. Thankfully he had had a lucky previous decade...
My first boyfriend called me years later, after taking a human sexuality class in college, where he learned about the clit.  To apologize.  Some schools don't even teach basic human biology because it can be construed as supporting sex.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #77 on: January 15, 2016, 12:02:21 PM »
An odd (to me) logic is a situation I've witnessed a number of times.

Teenager gets pregnant, struggles to get started in adult life, never gets anything beyond a HS education, family laments the poor choices made, etc.

Then cousins and siblings do the same thing.

You'd think one person would make a tough choice and the rest would witness and learn but they don't...

They witness and learn the following things:

(1) You don't explode on the spot if you drop out of high school or becoming a parent at an early age. In fact it's possible to get by. You won't have a lot of independence or comfort, but you don't immediately die.

(2) The family tends to rally around the teen parent, so everybody else learns that enablers are in fact available. There is now a precedent for helping clean up the bad consequences of someone else's mistake. Indeed, people who enable are treated as "good" while people who don't are "bad" or "selfish". So if you make the same mistake that your older brother or sister did, it's reasonable to expect that you, too, will be taken care of. It doesn't matter if the mistake is "dropping out of high school", "becoming a parent at a young age", or "experimenting with meth".

(3) You're going to be pressured, guilted, or otherwise conscripted into caring for the new baby or the mistake-making adult who now has high needs. This means you will be less able to focus on school work and more likely to have difficulty. If you're struggling, you won't receive help because all the available help is going to the new baby or the new addict.

(4) You learn to rationalize that it's "better for the family" if one or more young people drop out of high school or never continue into more advanced education, because the young adults are now available for child and elder caregiving for siblings, sick parents, addicted persons, minimum wage earners, or replacements for people who are in prison. So if you do something that sabotages your long-term future as an individual, it's OK because you're benefiting somebody else. The fact that you'd be a far better contributor to the family if you went to university and earned a computer science degree is nice in theory, but it also means that your needy sister, uncle, cousin, or parent won't get their needs met *today*.

(5) Communist culture sets in ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). Any individual who attempts to set money aside instead of giving it to needy family members is socially punished for it. Same goes for anybody who insists on pursuing advanced education and doing homework instead of "helping", or who is unwilling to overload the lifeboat by taking in the children and young adults who are left without reasonable care because the extended family's available resources are being focused on a few high-needs individuals.

In short, in an environment where the family bands together to take care of its own, individuals sometimes learn that it's easier and better to self-sabotage.

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #78 on: January 15, 2016, 01:53:40 PM »
Yeah, you nailed it. You've obviously given it more thought than I have.

I never had the life boats you detailed.

I wonder how many of the forum participants might be in the same situation where they NEED to be self-supporting and can't/won't move back home or make risky long term commitments.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2016, 02:16:51 PM by Jethrosnose »

SunshineAZ

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 203
  • Location: SE Arizona
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #79 on: January 15, 2016, 02:13:24 PM »
I just want to make a comment about another reason young girls get pregnant.  Society, the media, etc. in an effort to take away the shame that historically was given to young unwed mothers, have made single motherhood  "cool" or at least a sympathetic character.  How often do you see "single mother" in TV shows or movies as the main character, who is the martyr and/or the badass heroine who everyone is supposed to root for. 

I know my own niece had her son at 18, with a loser father who isn't around much, and she constantly reminds everyone she is a mother and her son is so precious to her, blah blah, like she should get a medal and have automatic adult status for having a kid.  And the ironic thing, is she is a terrible mother.  She constantly yells at the poor kid, he wasn't potty trained until he was almost 4, because she couldn't be bothered to pay enough attention to him to work with him.  But it is obvious that she thinks she deserve special status because she is a "mom", and makes sure everyone knows it.  I feel really sorry for her kid and am glad that I don't live near them anymore. 

Making Cookies

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1645
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #80 on: January 15, 2016, 02:18:23 PM »
Yeah - I have one of those in the family too. It IS really, really sad. Nothing like a little kid with little or no understanding taking the brunt of their parents' ignorance and immaturity.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2381
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #81 on: January 15, 2016, 04:54:15 PM »
Yeah, you nailed it. You've obviously given it more thought than I have.

I never had the life boats you detailed.

I wonder how many of the forum participants might be in the same situation where they NEED to be self-supporting and can't/won't move back home or make risky long term commitments.

I intend for the lifeboat to be an analogy for a family or household. Like a lifeboat, a household is designed to stay afloat under most conditions, although there's such a thing as a storm that will sink it no matter what. But there's an upper limit as to how much each lifeboat can hold. Overload it, and it will sink especially in bad weather. A family or household has a finite amount of resources in terms of money, space, adult attention, etc. and if you exceed the limits too much or for too long, at least some of the family members get a raw deal. Either their needs aren't met (they fall or get thrown overboard, to continue my lifeboat analogy) or their physical or mental health suffers.

Sadly, a lot of people truly don't accept the idea that there are limits to their own power or resources, so they overcommit to the point where being overcommitted seems normal, and rely on luck, faith, or other people to relieve their discomfort afterwards.

I doubt that many of the forum participants were raised that way, to routinely overcommit themselves (or others) to the point of incapacity while regarding it as moral necessity.

Admittedly, a Mustachian household is more able to handle an extra child or a sickly adult than an anti-Mustachian home would be. Living below one's means and not over-consuming creates a margin that can allow more schedule and spending flexibility. Having sizable savings, or even being FIRE, allows a parent to devote more time to child care if needed.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4858
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...m
« Reply #82 on: January 15, 2016, 07:04:23 PM »
It's an old chestnut that teens have babies because they don't know or have access to birth control.
The research shows that they are able to use birth control, they have access to it.

The reality is that in the culture of poverty, children provide value to their lives. It is a conscious choice of  poor young women to have babies out of wedlock. Some research suggests that having babies young and out of wedlock doesn't really affect the socioeconomic position of these women anyway. In other words, they are making logical decisions within their own culture. Because it doesn't make sense to the mustachioed doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

This is very hard for those of middle class values to hear and grok.

Citation please?  Because that statement is directly opposite what was taught in my psychology of sexuality, and they had citations.  Granted, I did not check them and this was almost ten years ago, but  I'd be surprised if this was true.

Poverty Causes Teen Parenting, Not the Other Way Around
For Many Poor Black Girls, Teen Pregnancy Is A Rational Choice
Why Are Teen Moms Poor?
Controversy over Teen Pregnancy

Many of those articles link back to the research articles; the summary is that it's hard to differentiate between correlation and causation.
The link isn't as strong as moralizing about bad choices makes it seem to be.

The way out of the mess would be solving poverty, better education, jobs for people who don't have them, end of crime etc. It's a hard problem to solve, easier to point fingers at the mess.
Except none of those cited research articles actually support your statement, especially given the extreme disparity of teen pregnancy/birth between states with actual sex ed/abortion clinics and those without.

Wilson Hall

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #83 on: January 15, 2016, 07:18:44 PM »
An odd (to me) logic is a situation I've witnessed a number of times.

Teenager gets pregnant, struggles to get started in adult life, never gets anything beyond a HS education, family laments the poor choices made, etc.

Then cousins and siblings do the same thing.

You'd think one person would make a tough choice and the rest would witness and learn but they don't...



They witness and learn the following things:

(1) You don't explode on the spot if you drop out of high school or becoming a parent at an early age. In fact it's possible to get by. You won't have a lot of independence or comfort, but you don't immediately die.

(2) The family tends to rally around the teen parent, so everybody else learns that enablers are in fact available. There is now a precedent for helping clean up the bad consequences of someone else's mistake. Indeed, people who enable are treated as "good" while people who don't are "bad" or "selfish". So if you make the same mistake that your older brother or sister did, it's reasonable to expect that you, too, will be taken care of. It doesn't matter if the mistake is "dropping out of high school", "becoming a parent at a young age", or "experimenting with meth".

(3) You're going to be pressured, guilted, or otherwise conscripted into caring for the new baby or the mistake-making adult who now has high needs. This means you will be less able to focus on school work and more likely to have difficulty. If you're struggling, you won't receive help because all the available help is going to the new baby or the new addict.

(4) You learn to rationalize that it's "better for the family" if one or more young people drop out of high school or never continue into more advanced education, because the young adults are now available for child and elder caregiving for siblings, sick parents, addicted persons, minimum wage earners, or replacements for people who are in prison. So if you do something that sabotages your long-term future as an individual, it's OK because you're benefiting somebody else. The fact that you'd be a far better contributor to the family if you went to university and earned a computer science degree is nice in theory, but it also means that your needy sister, uncle, cousin, or parent won't get their needs met *today*.

(5) Communist culture sets in ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). Any individual who attempts to set money aside instead of giving it to needy family members is socially punished for it. Same goes for anybody who insists on pursuing advanced education and doing homework instead of "helping", or who is unwilling to overload the lifeboat by taking in the children and young adults who are left without reasonable care because the extended family's available resources are being focused on a few high-needs individuals.

In short, in an environment where the family bands together to take care of its own, individuals sometimes learn that it's easier and better to self-sabotage.

Good points. I know families with two or three generations of teenage/unplanned pregnancies. Actions speak louder than words. If the younger generation sees mom getting support from grandparents and other extended family, they assume they will get the same benefits eventually.

Maybe this is why people who are trying to break out of the cycle of family poverty ultimately have to move away. Staying in the familial community may very well keep them from achieving financial independence.

tobitonic

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
Re: From the low-income homeownership non-profit newsletter...
« Reply #84 on: January 15, 2016, 11:20:08 PM »
An odd (to me) logic is a situation I've witnessed a number of times.

Teenager gets pregnant, struggles to get started in adult life, never gets anything beyond a HS education, family laments the poor choices made, etc.

Then cousins and siblings do the same thing.

You'd think one person would make a tough choice and the rest would witness and learn but they don't...

They witness and learn the following things:

(1) You don't explode on the spot if you drop out of high school or becoming a parent at an early age. In fact it's possible to get by. You won't have a lot of independence or comfort, but you don't immediately die.

(2) The family tends to rally around the teen parent, so everybody else learns that enablers are in fact available. There is now a precedent for helping clean up the bad consequences of someone else's mistake. Indeed, people who enable are treated as "good" while people who don't are "bad" or "selfish". So if you make the same mistake that your older brother or sister did, it's reasonable to expect that you, too, will be taken care of. It doesn't matter if the mistake is "dropping out of high school", "becoming a parent at a young age", or "experimenting with meth".

(3) You're going to be pressured, guilted, or otherwise conscripted into caring for the new baby or the mistake-making adult who now has high needs. This means you will be less able to focus on school work and more likely to have difficulty. If you're struggling, you won't receive help because all the available help is going to the new baby or the new addict.

(4) You learn to rationalize that it's "better for the family" if one or more young people drop out of high school or never continue into more advanced education, because the young adults are now available for child and elder caregiving for siblings, sick parents, addicted persons, minimum wage earners, or replacements for people who are in prison. So if you do something that sabotages your long-term future as an individual, it's OK because you're benefiting somebody else. The fact that you'd be a far better contributor to the family if you went to university and earned a computer science degree is nice in theory, but it also means that your needy sister, uncle, cousin, or parent won't get their needs met *today*.

(5) Communist culture sets in ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"). Any individual who attempts to set money aside instead of giving it to needy family members is socially punished for it. Same goes for anybody who insists on pursuing advanced education and doing homework instead of "helping", or who is unwilling to overload the lifeboat by taking in the children and young adults who are left without reasonable care because the extended family's available resources are being focused on a few high-needs individuals.

In short, in an environment where the family bands together to take care of its own, individuals sometimes learn that it's easier and better to self-sabotage.

Excellent points. To summarize it: social support. It's also why most people remain in their home towns, even if there aren't educational or career ops, vs. leaving town or state or country. We close some doors to keep others open.