Relatives who just don't get it

[Dicey]

My problem with all this is that I’m taking it a bit too personally...I'm looking at my 1998 Camry sitting in the garage and thinking I’ll never have as nice a car as DS does now.

Solution: Save your money and plan on buying it from him with cash at fair (depreciated) market value when he tires of it. This will give you something to look forward to. I'm assuming you would be able to pay cash for it now, but it will be more fun if you start a new-to-you car fund and watch it grow.

[dandarc]

I have a bachelor party that is 5.5 hours away next month. There are four of us from the same city and I offered to drive. One guy says SW has a great deal! $135! Well its also $177 coming back. So it would be $315 a person (or $1250 a carload) to fly to the city that would take 3 hours to get to when you include parking at the airport, checking in, baggage claim, and then 25 min downtown from the airport in either an uber or rental. It did not make sense to me at all.

Probably cheaper to drive even if they don't pitch in for gas or anything.

[TomTX]

"...AT LEAST 5%"

The more emphatically I imagine these two geezers saying AT LEAST, the funnier it is. It's like, WASH YOUR HAIR AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH! WHETHER IT NEEDS IT OR NOT!

Always watch the sunset, at least once per day.

. Those orbital rocket rides are a bit out of my price range foe those multiple sunsets....

[TomTX]

Would someone like this (or anyone, really) keep a car for 20 years? Think of where electric cars and automation will be in 20 years. It'll be all too easy to say, "But all the gas and time savings! Why should I keep this outdated gas guzzler?"

It's hard to say for sure but I could see this happening. Maybe he'll keep it at least 10 years though, that's not unreasonable for a brand new car even if you drive a lot of miles. But maybe he'll keep it even less since he's going to grad school and might be making bank in a few years? Hedonic threadmill and all...

Ohhh, that is a good point--I was about to say of course people keep their cars for 20 years, even non-mustachian people, but electric and self driving cars will likely throw a wrench in that for a few years.

Yes, those are two trends each with the possibility of causing major disruption in the automotive industry and market. Probably within 5 years.

Think about how Uber, etc have disrupted taxis.

Autonomous capabilities have the potential to cut costs 75% by eliminating the driver.

EVs have the potential to cut TCO by 50% once you include the lower maintenance, much lower fuel cost and expected longer power train lifespan (not today, it's still early. But in 5 years under current trends)

Both of these effects are complementary, so you could see on-demand transportation costs go down a LOT.

[Gronnie]

I have a bachelor party that is 5.5 hours away next month. There are four of us from the same city and I offered to drive. One guy says SW has a great deal! $135! Well its also $177 coming back. So it would be $315 a person (or $1250 a carload) to fly to the city that would take 3 hours to get to when you include parking at the airport, checking in, baggage claim, and then 25 min downtown from the airport in either an uber or rental. It did not make sense to me at all.

Probably cheaper to drive even if they don't pitch in for gas or anything.

Plus then you will have a car at your destination.

[MgoSam]

I have a bachelor party that is 5.5 hours away next month. There are four of us from the same city and I offered to drive. One guy says SW has a great deal! $135! Well its also $177 coming back. So it would be $315 a person (or $1250 a carload) to fly to the city that would take 3 hours to get to when you include parking at the airport, checking in, baggage claim, and then 25 min downtown from the airport in either an uber or rental. It did not make sense to me at all.

Probably cheaper to drive even if they don't pitch in for gas or anything.

Plus then you will have a car at your destination.

And you can listen to a decent audiobook during the 11 hours of the drive.

[druth]

Some gems from my dinner with the in-laws a couple days ago:

They want to move closer to the city, this is great, good for them.

A few interesting things came out of this discussion though. 

First, they primarily chose the city they want to move to based on where they think there is the most growth for their Primerica business.

Then I asked, "So are you going to be downsizing?"  MIL says "I'd like to get something bigger, you know how cold the winters get in Minnesota, and I just feel like it's much more warming to have a lot of space.  It's nice to be able to move to a different room sometimes."  I don't even know what on earth that means.  They currently have a 1500ish sq. ft. home for 2 people, which was enough when they had four kids, but apparently it's too... ?? something ??  I really don't understand.

Also another reason for moving given was "You know how old homes get, ours is getting to 25 years and things are just starting to fall apart and it's just not worth it."  Cocked my head at this one...  They know our house was built in 1915.  Their house is falling apart because they can't generally afford to do real maintenance on it, not because it's 'old'.

I think this move probably won't happen, seems like they are blowing money like crazy right now based on the assumption that they are going to make it big with Primerica, and that house plans are also based on the same assumptions.

Another really minor thing was that FIL brought up some things about how we should really let him/Primerica take care of our 401ks.  I shut him down pretty quickly but I was really thrown off when he asked if I was getting a "good interest rate on my 401k."  Okay, contextually I know what he means, but I don't know anybody with good knowledge of finances that would call what you get from a 401k a "interest rate," unless you were talking in the context of exclusively buying bonds or something, most would call that average RoI or RoR or something.  Again, really minor in any other context, but it really made me even more certain that he is completely unqualified to handle anybodies money.

[WerKater]

Then I asked, "So are you going to be downsizing?"  MIL says "I'd like to get something bigger, you know how cold the winters get in Minnesota, and I just feel like it's much more warming to have a lot of space.  It's nice to be able to move to a different room sometimes."  I don't even know what on earth that means.  They currently have a 1500ish sq. ft. home for 2 people, which was enough when they had four kids, but apparently it's too... ?? something ??  I really don't understand.

Maybe they plan to heat all the rooms to different temperatures? So when you come in from the cold, you can go to the coolish 18°-room (which will feel warm to you since the outside was much colder). Once you get used to that, you move the next-warmer room, at 20°, and so on. The more rooms you have, the longer you can keep this up. It's foolproof!

[Linea_Norway]

Then I asked, "So are you going to be downsizing?"  MIL says "I'd like to get something bigger, you know how cold the winters get in Minnesota, and I just feel like it's much more warming to have a lot of space.  It's nice to be able to move to a different room sometimes."  I don't even know what on earth that means.  They currently have a 1500ish sq. ft. home for 2 people, which was enough when they had four kids, but apparently it's too... ?? something ??  I really don't understand.

Interesting theory and so wrong. But on the other hand... I live in a big house and I do not heat the rooms that I don't daily use. I keep the doors to those rooms closed. So these rooms are pretty cold in the winter, although not as cold as outside. That will probably work as an insulating buffer. It will be warmer for the warm room to lay beside the half-cold room, then against the outside. On the other hand, the outside wall is well insulated, while the walls inside the house are not.

But my conclusion after living in a big house for many years, is to move smaller.

[Sibley]

Oh god, gotta vent.

I have 98% visibility into my parent's finances (checking, credit cards, etc). Don't see the mortgage. Anyway, I set everything up into a seperate Quicken file on my computer so I can keep track of things. Dad isn't really trustworthy anymore and is easily taken by scammers. Mom is clueless and thinks she can't figure it out so doesn't even try.

So I downloaded transactions into Quicken yesterday and spent a bunch of time unduplicating it (I have no idea why it does that). Then start looking over stuff. As usual, spend way too much on groceries, then spend more on eating out. As usual, too much on Comcast. As usual, spending a crap ton of money on cigarettes.

Then I look at the credit cards. What, why is that card at $1k? I just worked with them to transfer the $13k balance to a promo 0% interest rate a few months ago, it should be in the drawer, not being used, at $0. Um, nope.

Ugh. My parents are hopeless. I love them dearly, but when SHTF (and it will, dad's got dementia and he's getting worse), they will be declaring bankruptcy, moving near me, and going cash only. Because clearly they can't manage credit.

[Saskatchewstachian]

Some gems from my dinner with the in-laws a couple days ago:

They want to move closer to the city, this is great, good for them.

A few interesting things came out of this discussion though. 

First, they primarily chose the city they want to move to based on where they think there is the most growth for their Primerica business.

.
.
.

I think this move probably won't happen, seems like they are blowing money like crazy right now based on the assumption that they are going to make it big with Primerica, and that house plans are also based on the same assumptions.

Those are a couple terrifying statements right there!

A few years ago before my MMM days I sat through a Primerica session just to get the free financial analysis done (thought it may be useful, hint... it wasn't) and the sales tactics that were used were in my mind borderline unethical.

Statements like "you don't pay us anything for this service!" - technically true for up front costs but after Primerica signs you up for a mutual funds with 3% MER's they are getting paid from that.

[druth]

Some gems from my dinner with the in-laws a couple days ago:

They want to move closer to the city, this is great, good for them.

A few interesting things came out of this discussion though. 

First, they primarily chose the city they want to move to based on where they think there is the most growth for their Primerica business.

.
.
.

I think this move probably won't happen, seems like they are blowing money like crazy right now based on the assumption that they are going to make it big with Primerica, and that house plans are also based on the same assumptions.

Those are a couple terrifying statements right there!

A few years ago before my MMM days I sat through a Primerica session just to get the free financial analysis done (thought it may be useful, hint... it wasn't) and the sales tactics that were used were in my mind borderline unethical.

Statements like "you don't pay us anything for this service!" - technically true for up front costs but after Primerica signs you up for a mutual funds with 3% MER's they are getting paid from that.

Yeah, I looked up the basics on them for ammo if I have to talk to FIL about it any more.  4-6% on the front, up to 7% on the back if you sell within 7 years, and higher than 1% management fees.  But apparently he's getting a "good interest rate" so it must be worth it!

[chaskavitch]

Some gems from my dinner with the in-laws a couple days ago:

They want to move closer to the city, this is great, good for them.

A few interesting things came out of this discussion though. 

First, they primarily chose the city they want to move to based on where they think there is the most growth for their Primerica business.

.
.
.

I think this move probably won't happen, seems like they are blowing money like crazy right now based on the assumption that they are going to make it big with Primerica, and that house plans are also based on the same assumptions.

Those are a couple terrifying statements right there!

A few years ago before my MMM days I sat through a Primerica session just to get the free financial analysis done (thought it may be useful, hint... it wasn't) and the sales tactics that were used were in my mind borderline unethical.

Statements like "you don't pay us anything for this service!" - technically true for up front costs but after Primerica signs you up for a mutual funds with 3% MER's they are getting paid from that.

Yeah, I looked up the basics on them for ammo if I have to talk to FIL about it any more.  4-6% on the front, up to 7% on the back if you sell within 7 years, and higher than 1% management fees.  But apparently he's getting a "good interest rate" so it must be worth it!

I'm pretty sure my parents got suckered into this a few years ago :(  Luckily they got a "free consultation" with a friend of a friend who was starting up with Edward Jones, and he immediately told them "Guys, you're paying like 5 or 6% in fees, that's ridiculous.".  I mean, I'd totally be willing to try to manage their retirement myself, but I appreciate that they found someone else who, although semi-reasonably expensive, seems to be very straightforward about everything he's doing.

[dandarc]

When the Edward Jones advisor is the voice of reason . . .

[jinga nation]

When the Edward Jones advisor is the voice of reason . . .

Because "Edward Jones" and their "Making Sense of Investing" on a sunflower yellow background gives a sense of reassurance to the wanna-stay-ignorant.

Or people could read the Bogleheads wiki on lazy portfolios, and ignore Fast Eddie who's constantly jonesing for your wallet.

My biggest beef with western countries is you almost always have the government to bail you out. If you didn't have that safety factor, you'd be saving and investing more, into equities, real estate, business, etc. Just my opinion, don't ask me to cite scholarly proof.

[Saskatchewstachian]

When the Edward Jones advisor is the voice of reason . . .

Not THAT's a scary thought....

[chaskavitch]

When the Edward Jones advisor is the voice of reason . . .

Because "Edward Jones" and their "Making Sense of Investing" on a sunflower yellow background gives a sense of reassurance to the wanna-stay-ignorant.

Or people could read the Bogleheads wiki on lazy portfolios, and ignore Fast Eddie who's constantly jonesing for your wallet.

My biggest beef with western countries is you almost always have the government to bail you out. If you didn't have that safety factor, you'd be saving and investing more, into equities, real estate, business, etc. Just my opinion, don't ask me to cite scholarly proof.

My mom is definitely the head-in-the-sand sort with investing.  My dad does ok, but I think he just wants to believe advisers have his best interests at heart.  They'll be fine, though - they've got Tricare insurance for life, they own their house, they go camping in-state for vacations, they JUST upgraded to smartphones last year, and they're perfectly happy with what they have.  With my dad's army retirement and SS, I'm pretty sure they're still socking money away, even though my mom makes very little money teaching computer skills at an elementary school. 

I really, really should have offered to help manage their stuff once I found out about the Primerica fiasco, but they're gun-shy about self-management after making bad decisions in 2000 and selling at the bottom of the market :(  We were talking about it, and Mom said "oh, I know we made a mistake not selling earlier.  If we'd done that it would have been fine."  I'm just over here like "Well, or you could have not sold AT ALL, and you'd have like a billion dollars right now."

[MgoSam]

My biggest beef with western countries is you almost always have the government to bail you out. If you didn't have that safety factor, you'd be saving and investing more, into equities, real estate, business, etc. Just my opinion, don't ask me to cite scholarly proof.

I absolutely agree. I mean I'm not saying that it would be better overall if there weren't such safety nets, but I hate how passive it has made people. I know people that will do detailed research into their fantasy team but won't even look into index funds. That tells me that they have the ability but lack the desire. They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

[merula]

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

[Paul der Krake]

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

Yeah my favorite example of this is the myth of the "hard working homeowner". Which is just code for some two-car family in the suburbia living above their means.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

Fascinating topic. I have a relative who spent years on workers' compensation before transitioning directly to social security. This individual is one of the staunchest conservatives I know and believes that everyone (else?) should have to bootstrap their way through life. They are against all sorts of social programs and view most of these things as handouts and the participants as moochers.

I do not understand how they cannot see the disconnect between their own (I assume valid) use of the programs in our state, and the people they rail against who also need these sort of programs.

Many of the boot-strappers I know benefited from scholarships, grants, and bursaries during their school years. They also tended to go to public universities that are heavily subsidized by tax dollars. What I don't understand is why they don't acknowledge the extent to which they benefited from the ladder they got to climb, and why they pretend that they did it all themselves.

[merula]

Now I really wish I could remember it. I've scoured my recent Goodreads list and I feel like it might have been The New Jim Crow, but I 'm not sure. However, a google search did reveal other very interesting information:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/10/24/we-showed-trump-voters-photos-of-black-and-white-americans-heres-how-it-affected-their-views/?utm_term=.15b323bea944

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/race-safety-net-welfare/529203/

[mustachepungoeshere]

I know people that will do detailed research into their fantasy team but won't even look into index funds. That tells me that they have the ability but lack the desire.

This sums it up perfectly!

One of my husband's friends spent hours comparing specs on a new TV but couldn't tell me which super fund he was with.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

Fascinating topic. I have a relative who spent years on workers' compensation before transitioning directly to social security. This individual is one of the staunchest conservatives I know and believes that everyone (else?) should have to bootstrap their way through life. They are against all sorts of social programs and view most of these things as handouts and the participants as moochers.

I do not understand how they cannot see the disconnect between their own (I assume valid) use of the programs in our state, and the people they rail against who also need these sort of programs.

Many of the boot-strappers I know benefited from scholarships, grants, and bursaries during their school years. They also tended to go to public universities that are heavily subsidized by tax dollars. What I don't understand is why they don't acknowledge the extent to which they benefited from the ladder they got to climb, and why they pretend that they did it all themselves.

It's called privilege. Very hard to see when you're the one benefiting. Very hard not to see when you're the one without it.

[mustachepungoeshere]

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

Fascinating topic. I have a relative who spent years on workers' compensation before transitioning directly to social security. This individual is one of the staunchest conservatives I know and believes that everyone (else?) should have to bootstrap their way through life. They are against all sorts of social programs and view most of these things as handouts and the participants as moochers.

I do not understand how they cannot see the disconnect between their own (I assume valid) use of the programs in our state, and the people they rail against who also need these sort of programs.

Many of the boot-strappers I know benefited from scholarships, grants, and bursaries during their school years. They also tended to go to public universities that are heavily subsidized by tax dollars. What I don't understand is why they don't acknowledge the extent to which they benefited from the ladder they got to climb, and why they pretend that they did it all themselves.

It goes back to judging themselves by their intentions and others by their actions.

A Planet Money or This American Life podcast on welfare interviewed a woman who received subsidised housing, food stamps, and subsidised education for her son, then had the gall to proudly tell the reporter, "But I never went on welfare."

[druth]

A Planet Money or This American Life podcast on welfare interviewed a woman who received subsidised housing, food stamps, and subsidised education for her son, then had the gall to proudly tell the reporter, "But I never went on welfare."

Is it only welfare if you are getting actual cash from the government?

[ixtap]

A Planet Money or This American Life podcast on welfare interviewed a woman who received subsidised housing, food stamps, and subsidised education for her son, then had the gall to proudly tell the reporter, "But I never went on welfare."

Is it only welfare if you are getting actual cash from the government?

It is only welfare when other people get it, especially non white people.

I have one in my family who gets food stamps and CHIP for the kids, lived a decade or so in a house owned by the parents, with sporadic rent payments, who frequently goes on rants about no one ever gave him anything, he has earned everything he has and other people need to learn yo take care of themselves.

[martyconlonontherun]

My problem/experience with food stamps was working at a grocery and seeing tons of crap being bought. I would never buy the soda and chips myself 1. I couldn't afford it 2. It's so bad for you. I just wish government money only went to healthy foods. Too many people are malnourished in this country to be wasting money on coke and Doritos.

[Apples]

A Planet Money or This American Life podcast on welfare interviewed a woman who received subsidised housing, food stamps, and subsidised education for her son, then had the gall to proudly tell the reporter, "But I never went on welfare."

Is it only welfare if you are getting actual cash from the government?

For the specifics of that Planet Money episode, yes.  That woman and many in her community only consider "welfare" actual cash handouts from the government.  I listened to that a long time ago, and can't remember what exactly the reasoning was.

You also realize that most middle class Americans, like the reporter, have also benefited from government benefits and would never consider themselves to have been on welfare (school grants, subsidized loans, state school, etc.).  That's just a helping hand to the working man as many around here (where I live) like to say. 

[merula]

My problem/experience with food stamps was working at a grocery and seeing tons of crap being bought. I would never buy the soda and chips myself 1. I couldn't afford it 2. It's so bad for you. I just wish government money only went to healthy foods. Too many people are malnourished in this country to be wasting money on coke and Doritos.

Eh, I personally think values-judgment with stuff like that is a waste of time and money. Besides, what's "healthy"? Is my breakfast of oatmeal, toast and coffee healthy? My mom, who is still on the 80's low-fat craze, would say yes. (Except that I had whole milk in both.) MMM, as a a low-carb believer, would say no. My grandma believed that a hot breakfast was healthier than a cold breakfast (bacon and eggs or oatmeal would be healthy, hard-boiled eggs or cold cereal are not).

I think SNAP is a much better program, overall, than WIC, for example. With WIC, you *have* to buy the exact thing you have vouchers for. Like, I saw a woman who had to go back to get a different orange juice because she had grabbed the 59oz bottle that was on sale and not the 64oz bottle that wasn't, and only the 64oz bottle qualified for the voucher. Who benefits in that situation? Not her, who had to spend all that extra time re-ringing her stuff. Not the people in line behind her. Not the store who has to deal with the vouchers and program their systems to flag 'non-compliant' purchases. Not the government, who has to reimburse the store for the more expensive but basically identical product, AND has to administer those byzantine rules.

[ixtap]

Regarding WIC, in CA, there are WIC stores. I never asked, but they don't seem to accept non WIC purchases. I have no idea if they are businesses or state run, but the one near me is beside the WIC office, not inside.

[iris lily]

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

Fascinating topic. I have a relative who spent years on workers' compensation before transitioning directly to social security. This individual is one of the staunchest conservatives I know and believes that everyone (else?) should have to bootstrap their way through life. They are against all sorts of social programs and view most of these things as handouts and the participants as moochers.

I do not understand how they cannot see the disconnect between their own (I assume valid) use of the programs in our state, and the people they rail against who also need these sort of programs.

Many of the boot-strappers I know benefited from scholarships, grants, and bursaries during their school years. They also tended to go to public universities that are heavily subsidized by tax dollars. What I don't understand is why they don't acknowledge the extent to which they benefited from the ladder they got to climb, and why they pretend that they did it all themselves.

What an odd way to frame an issue and marginalize "boot-strappers."

Another way would be to say that boot-strappers, a group to which you would conscript me, wonder why these publicly available resources are not recognized and utilized by those who are, for simplicity of argument "not boot-strappers."

It's not a secret, you know, the publicly funded universities and the like.

[infogoon]

Fascinating topic. I have a relative who spent years on workers' compensation before transitioning directly to social security. This individual is one of the staunchest conservatives I know and believes that everyone (else?) should have to bootstrap their way through life. They are against all sorts of social programs and view most of these things as handouts and the participants as moochers.

I do not understand how they cannot see the disconnect between their own (I assume valid) use of the programs in our state, and the people they rail against who also need these sort of programs.

It's a common phenomenon. I have a relative who would be in desperate poverty, possibly dead, without the income and health insurance from his wife's job as a public elementary school teacher. He spends his free time complaining on Facebook about the evils of unions and the incompetence of state employees.

[MgoSam]

A Planet Money or This American Life podcast on welfare interviewed a woman who received subsidised housing, food stamps, and subsidised education for her son, then had the gall to proudly tell the reporter, "But I never went on welfare."

Is it only welfare if you are getting actual cash from the government?

For the specifics of that Planet Money episode, yes.  That woman and many in her community only consider "welfare" actual cash handouts from the government.  I listened to that a long time ago, and can't remember what exactly the reasoning was.

You also realize that most middle class Americans, like the reporter, have also benefited from government benefits and would never consider themselves to have been on welfare (school grants, subsidized loans, state school, etc.).  That's just a helping hand to the working man as many around here (where I live) like to say.

Actually you can get welfare and still refuse to think that anyone helped you out. Just look at Craig T Nelson, "I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No."

That's the thing that pisses the life out of me. Whenever you hear a politician talking about welfare it's code for saying BLACK PEOPLE. 

Just the other week I was reading about a largely Jewish town in NJ that had 20 some people arrested for Medicare fraud. The state decided to give them an amnesty, and then after getting backlash for seemingly going easy on a wealthy (and white) area, they lied and said that it was a "trial program." Funny how they never thought of doing any such programs in Newark.

[paddedhat]

It's called privilege. Very hard to see when you're the one benefiting. Very hard not to see when you're the one without it.

Unfortunately, this whole delusion is pretty common among the US conservative set. I know several older white men who would be eating from dumpsters if they were denied the benefits of our social safety net, yet are venomous toward those that are "abusing" the system, which they define as minorities, and any whites who fail to meet their moral standards. My favorite is a younger baby boomer acquaintance who has a wife with some extreme health issues, including new organs, that were required due to long term illegal drug use. She is on SS disability, and medicaid and would literally be dead without government handouts. They are both intolerant and righteous to an extreme, racists, and "Good Christians". Makes my fucking head hurt to even think about it. In their little minds, they are fully deserving of everything they get, since they earned it. If the exact same scenario was presented to them, with a black woman, with a history of long term drug abuse, and in need of organ transplants, they would be perfectly happy to advocate witholding treatment, since that person would be undeserving.

[economista]

There are definitely groups of people who believe that the term "welfare" only applies to getting cash hand-outs in the nature of the old welfare program in the US.  In reality, the biggest individual component of the welfare program in the US is the earned-income tax credit (as far as economic literature is concerned) and many people receive it even when they make too much to qualify for food stamps and other forms of aid.  My mom is a good example - growing up we lived in subsidized housing, we received food stamps, all of our clothes and most of our groceries came from the local food bank, and she even received emergency cash assistance to pay our utility bills every few months with the water and electric would get cut off, but she swears up and down that she never got "welfare".  She currently is on SSI and she is a giant, hypocritical conservative.

My entire family is full of hypocritical, Christian conservatives.  My cousin got married and her husband is in med school, therefore not earning any money at all.  She is a stay at home mom and they live off a combination of student loans, handouts from their parents, and a whopping $700 per month in food stamps.  However, my conservative, welfare-hating family sees nothing wrong with this situation.  In their eyes, she was a chaste virgin when she was married, she became a good, baby-making catholic who is staying home to raise her child (like ALL mothers are supposed to do) and they are simply going through a hard time so they are using the support systems that are set up to help people like them.  However, all of the no-good single mothers and lazy low-income fathers are abusing the system and their tax dollars shouldn't be used to support "those" kind of people.  It makes me sick.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

They are likely the first people that are outraged that they aren't getting a bailout when the economy tanks...but still view a good portion of the population as "moochers."

This is a really interesting topic that was raised in something I read recently... I wish I could remember what it was. Basically, it's that there's a strong race- and class-based bias underlying those views. People who are 'like me' are doing the best they can and just need a hand getting back on their feet. People who are 'like them' are good-for-nothing layabouts who don't try, don't care, and need to be kicked off of government programs in order to save money for the 'deserving'.

Fascinating topic. I have a relative who spent years on workers' compensation before transitioning directly to social security. This individual is one of the staunchest conservatives I know and believes that everyone (else?) should have to bootstrap their way through life. They are against all sorts of social programs and view most of these things as handouts and the participants as moochers.

I do not understand how they cannot see the disconnect between their own (I assume valid) use of the programs in our state, and the people they rail against who also need these sort of programs.

Many of the boot-strappers I know benefited from scholarships, grants, and bursaries during their school years. They also tended to go to public universities that are heavily subsidized by tax dollars. What I don't understand is why they don't acknowledge the extent to which they benefited from the ladder they got to climb, and why they pretend that they did it all themselves.

What an odd way to frame an issue and marginalize "boot-strappers."

Another way would be to say that boot-strappers, a group to which you would conscript me, wonder why these publicly available resources are not recognized and utilized by those who are, for simplicity of argument "not boot-strappers."

It's not a secret, you know, the publicly funded universities and the like.

They're not a secret at all. Yet that doesn't make them appropriate or accessible to all people or even necessarily to the majority. That's why there are a variety of government programs to address people with diverse sets of needs, some of which cannot be remedied with education alone.

The point I'm making is that the rugged individualist image is very fashionable, and that it's common for people to claim they "did it all themselves" when in reality they and their families have benefited more heavily from taxpayer funded initiatives than they care to admit.

[zolotiyeruki]

Wow, the venom towards conservatives and Christians is running pretty viciously in this thread.  Can we get it back on the topic of antimustachian relatives?

[MrMoogle]

It's called privilege. Very hard to see when you're the one benefiting. Very hard not to see when you're the one without it.

Unfortunately, this whole delusion is pretty common among the US conservative set. I know several older white men who would be eating from dumpsters if they were denied the benefits of our social safety net, yet are venomous toward those that are "abusing" the system, which they define as minorities, and any whites who fail to meet their moral standards. My favorite is a younger baby boomer acquaintance who has a wife with some extreme health issues, including new organs, that were required due to long term illegal drug use. She is on SS disability, and medicaid and would literally be dead without government handouts. They are both intolerant and righteous to an extreme, racists, and "Good Christians". Makes my fucking head hurt to even think about it. In their little minds, they are fully deserving of everything they get, since they earned it. If the exact same scenario was presented to them, with a black woman, with a history of long term drug abuse, and in need of organ transplants, they would be perfectly happy to advocate witholding treatment, since that person would be undeserving.

Conservative here.  I've been trying to understand some of this, and I think a lot of it comes from semantics.  "Privileged" seems derogatory, but "blessed" seems flattering, but they both basically mean the same thing: you have benefitted from things that are outside your direct control.  Many conservatives don't like to be called privileged but have no problem being called blessed. 

"Welfare" is also a negative term, I'm not sure what a similar positive term would be. 

This is from the conservative perspective.  From the liberal one, "privileged" and "welfare" could be positive, I'm not sure.

"Racism" is another term that seems to have different connotations between liberals and conservatives.  The subtle racism liberals are fighting and talk about seem mostly like a fact of life, but a negative fact of life.  Where to conservatives it's a term only used extremely negatively, and is mostly referred as overt racism. 

Another perspective related to this topic is liberals tend to be forward looking and conservatives tend to be backward looking (I say this in the least derogatory way possible).  So racism to conservatives is how the past has defined it, which is the whole white-hat KKK thing.  Liberals are talking about an ideal they have, where even the society doesn't have (subtle) racist trends. 

So the whole conversations about these things are from very different perspectives.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

Wow, the venom towards conservatives and Christians is running pretty viciously in this thread.  Can we get it back on the topic of antimustachian relatives?

We're not off topic in this thread. The two people in the posts you mentioned were indeed talking about their anti-mustachian relatives. The relatives in question suffer from an extreme lack of generosity to others and blatant hypocrisy as well.

[ixtap]

There is nothing subtle about the way black people are treated by police.

There is nothing subtle about Confederate flags and tiki torches.

There is nothing subtle about white people with safety nets who resent black people on exactly the same programs.

There is nothing subtle about people losing their jobs because their hair isn't right.

Shall I continue?

Just because a large segment of our society refuses to acknowledge a gaping hole does not make it a small hole.

[MrMoogle]

There is nothing subtle about the way black people are treated by police.

There is nothing subtle about Confederate flags and tiki torches.

There is nothing subtle about white people with safety nets who resent black people on exactly the same programs.

There is nothing subtle about people losing their jobs because their hair isn't right.

Shall I continue?

Just because a large segment of our society refuses to acknowledge a gaping hole does not make it a small hole.

You're talking about the 0.001% of the population that does that overt stuff, and yes I denounce it, and so do most conservatives.

Once you get to an equivalent of a "black section" at a café or a "white's only" drinking fountain that every single American walks by and ignores, then yes, I believe it is subtle. 

The fact that I work with black people and value their work indicates that my problems are subtle.  And yes, I admit I have problems.

[Maenad]

I'm not saying that it would be better overall if there weren't such safety nets, but I hate how passive it has made people.

I think this is putting the cart before the horse. I think the short-term thinking (which looks like passivity) is endemic to our species and has little to do with what safety nets are present. I know people who have literally said that they'll just live off of Social Security and the gov't will take care of them. I know far more who are just so focused on "today" that "tomorrow" doesn't get a moment of their time. And we all fall victim to that - how many of us are taking perfect physical care of ourselves, in preparation for old age? I have a list as long as my arm of things I "should" be doing to plan and prepare for the future, and it's barely getting shorter each year.

[ixtap]

There is nothing subtle about the way black people are treated by police.

There is nothing subtle about Confederate flags and tiki torches.

There is nothing subtle about white people with safety nets who resent black people on exactly the same programs.

There is nothing subtle about people losing their jobs because their hair isn't right.

Shall I continue?

Just because a large segment of our society refuses to acknowledge a gaping hole does not make it a small hole.

You're talking about the 0.001% of the population that does that overt stuff, and yes I denounce it, and so do most conservatives.

Once you get to an equivalent of a "black section" at a café or a "white's only" drinking fountain that every single American walks by and ignores, then yes, I believe it is subtle. 

The fact that I work with black people and value their work indicates that my problems are subtle.  And yes, I admit I have problems.

Trump did not make it through the primaries because .0001% of the population holds ones or more of those beliefs.

And African Americans should not fvcking be grateful that they aren't being lynched or forced to use separate water fountains . Especially since they ARE being lynched by men and women in blue.

[zolotiyeruki]

I'm not saying that it would be better overall if there weren't such safety nets, but I hate how passive it has made people.

I think this is putting the cart before the horse. I think the short-term thinking (which looks like passivity) is endemic to our species and has little to do with what safety nets are present. I know people who have literally said that they'll just live off of Social Security and the gov't will take care of them. I know far more who are just so focused on "today" that "tomorrow" doesn't get a moment of their time. And we all fall victim to that - how many of us are taking perfect physical care of ourselves, in preparation for old age? I have a list as long as my arm of things I "should" be doing to plan and prepare for the future, and it's barely getting shorter each year.

I think of it as a bit of a vicious circle.  A problem is perceived (for example, "some old people can't support themselves"), so a program (in this example, Social Security) is created to "solve" the problem.  But while the program helps somewhat with the problem, it also creates perverse incentives by socializing the cost of individual decisions (people think the gov't will take care of them, so they save less on their own for retirement).  So the original problem actually grows ("now MORE old people don't have enough money for retirement!"), and the cycle repeats.

[BFGirl]

Oh god, gotta vent.

I have 98% visibility into my parent's finances (checking, credit cards, etc). Don't see the mortgage. Anyway, I set everything up into a seperate Quicken file on my computer so I can keep track of things. Dad isn't really trustworthy anymore and is easily taken by scammers. Mom is clueless and thinks she can't figure it out so doesn't even try.

So I downloaded transactions into Quicken yesterday and spent a bunch of time unduplicating it (I have no idea why it does that). Then start looking over stuff. As usual, spend way too much on groceries, then spend more on eating out. As usual, too much on Comcast. As usual, spending a crap ton of money on cigarettes.

Then I look at the credit cards. What, why is that card at $1k? I just worked with them to transfer the $13k balance to a promo 0% interest rate a few months ago, it should be in the drawer, not being used, at $0. Um, nope.

Ugh. My parents are hopeless. I love them dearly, but when SHTF (and it will, dad's got dementia and he's getting worse), they will be declaring bankruptcy, moving near me, and going cash only. Because clearly they can't manage credit.

Um...if your dad has dementia he isn't really capable of making sound monetary decisions.  Have you gotten powers of attorney and other planning documents done?  Would it be possible for you to take control of your parents' finances before it leads to financial ruin?

[MgoSam]

I'm not saying that it would be better overall if there weren't such safety nets, but I hate how passive it has made people.

I think this is putting the cart before the horse. I think the short-term thinking (which looks like passivity) is endemic to our species and has little to do with what safety nets are present. I know people who have literally said that they'll just live off of Social Security and the gov't will take care of them. I know far more who are just so focused on "today" that "tomorrow" doesn't get a moment of their time. And we all fall victim to that - how many of us are taking perfect physical care of ourselves, in preparation for old age? I have a list as long as my arm of things I "should" be doing to plan and prepare for the future, and it's barely getting shorter each year.

I think of it as a bit of a vicious circle.  A problem is perceived (for example, "some old people can't support themselves"), so a program (in this example, Social Security) is created to "solve" the problem.  But while the program helps somewhat with the problem, it also creates perverse incentives by socializing the cost of individual decisions (people think the gov't will take care of them, so they save less on their own for retirement).  So the original problem actually grows ("now MORE old people don't have enough money for retirement!"), and the cycle repeats.

More and more I am starting to see this as how the world works.

Take seat belts, great idea and I believe that everyone should have them on (unsure whether or not you should be ticketed for not wearing it though), but I read a case study that indicated that due to the perceived safety that the belt provides, drivers have become more reckless...and as a result car fatalities increased after the widespread adoption of seat belts. I read this case study over a decade ago so can't find it, but I'll try to google around for it later.

[zolotiyeruki]

I think of it as a bit of a vicious circle.  A problem is perceived (for example, "some old people can't support themselves"), so a program (in this example, Social Security) is created to "solve" the problem.  But while the program helps somewhat with the problem, it also creates perverse incentives by socializing the cost of individual decisions (people think the gov't will take care of them, so they save less on their own for retirement).  So the original problem actually grows ("now MORE old people don't have enough money for retirement!"), and the cycle repeats.

More and more I am starting to see this as how the world works.

Take seat belts, great idea and I believe that everyone should have them on (unsure whether or not you should be ticketed for not wearing it though), but I read a case study that indicated that due to the perceived safety that the belt provides, drivers have become more reckless...and as a result car fatalities increased after the widespread adoption of seat belts. I read this case study over a decade ago so can't find it, but I'll try to google around for it later.

I heard the same thing, except it was about the big push for kids to always wear bike helmets--after the big push, hospitals saw a significant increase in bike-related head injuries, because people (not just kids) were less careful when riding with a helmet.

[Goldielocks]

More and more I am starting to see this as how the world works.

Take seat belts, great idea and I believe that everyone should have them on (unsure whether or not you should be ticketed for not wearing it though), but I read a case study that indicated that due to the perceived safety that the belt provides, drivers have become more reckless...and as a result car fatalities increased after the widespread adoption of seat belts. I read this case study over a decade ago so can't find it, but I'll try to google around for it later.

Hmm.  interesting.  I heard a similar story, except the topic was airbags -- how they were first installed to quickly deactivate b/c people were still not wearing seatbelts, and these airbags caused the front seat kid injuries, but an airbag used with a seat belt needs to be much less powerful, as the seatbelt is sufficient for lower speed accidents.

Anyway, the same presentation discussed how people rely on safety nets and then speed more / take riskier actions...  I don't recall anything about more deaths after seatbelts, though, because that one seems obvious that seatbelts reduce deaths...?   Maybe the car with seatbelts speeds then hits another car without seatbelts?   IDK.. ?

ETA:  Found it! TIME article.  Yep, about SEATBELTS.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/SAE%20seatbelts.pdf 
 "..protecting car occupants from the consequences of bad driving encourages bad driving."  John Adams, June 1982, SAE

On reading the entire statistical study and hypothesis, it is very interesting to note the correlation between aggressive driving and traffic deaths...  This is shown through the decline in deaths related to the 1973 oil crisis, and attention to fuel conservation (aka less aggressive driving) that likely triggerred the initial drop in the index for all countries.  One country comment was about the introduction of drunk driving laws reducing deaths.

 I wonder, too, if the 1970's showed a demographic trend of fewer drivers under the age of 21?   e.g., like crime statistics, crash fatality numbers fall according to the demographics of the population, and that demographic trend masks any smaller impacts that wearing seatbelts may cause.?
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/teenagers/fatalityfacts/teenagers

[economista]

More and more I am starting to see this as how the world works.

Take seat belts, great idea and I believe that everyone should have them on (unsure whether or not you should be ticketed for not wearing it though), but I read a case study that indicated that due to the perceived safety that the belt provides, drivers have become more reckless...and as a result car fatalities increased after the widespread adoption of seat belts. I read this case study over a decade ago so can't find it, but I'll try to google around for it later.

Hmm.  interesting.  I heard a similar story, except the topic was airbags -- how they were first installed to quickly deactivate b/c people were still not wearing seatbelts, and these airbags caused the front seat kid injuries, but an airbag used with a seat belt needs to be much less powerful, as the seatbelt is sufficient for lower speed accidents.

Anyway, the same presentation discussed how people rely on safety nets and then speed more / take riskier actions...  I don't recall anything about more deaths after seatbelts, though, because that one seems obvious that seatbelts reduce deaths...?   Maybe the car with seatbelts speeds then hits another car without seatbelts?   IDK.. ?

ETA:  Found it! TIME article.  Yep, about SEATBELTS.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1564465,00.html

http://john-adams.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2006/SAE%20seatbelts.pdf 
 "..protecting car occupants from the consequences of bad driving encourages bad driving."  John Adams, June 1982, SAE

Freakonomics did an episode about this in regards to football helmets.  As helmets have gotten safer (in the sense of preventing skull fractures) the players have gotten more violent, thus leading more concussions (which aren't prevented by current helmet designs).  http://freakonomics.com/2015/08/13/the-dangers-of-safety-full-transcript-2/

Edit: After looking back through the transcript, they talk about seatbelts and safety standards in cars too :)