Relatives who just don't get it

[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 :)

[kayvent]

So this is actually the opposite of this thread but my excitement has been too much. My mother, who has always been poor with money, recently asked me to teach her some things about budgeting. She's agreed to help me set-up YNAB with her. It won't be mustachian but I believe I can save her lots of money by getting her to track and notice her expenses. (I recently found out that she spends more per week on food than my household.)

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.

I will beg to differ. People on foodstamps have a miserable life. For a single person to be on foodstamps, they'd be making sub-14500 gross or under 12000 net. We're on the MMM forum; even us super-frugal, do-it-yourselfers don't can't live that cheaply. I've seen threads on this forum. We think it is incredibly frugal to only spend 22K. To many of us, living on 12K is unimaginable.

I am going to confer to Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) argument on this subject of poor people buying unhealthy food while on the dole. If you're living that type of subsistence living, it is only natural to want to escape that misery. Even if it is just for a moment while drinking pop or having a bag of crisps. I don't begrudge suffering people taking a pain killer.

[zolotiyeruki]

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 :)

I wonder how much research has been done with regards to head injuries in rugby vs American football.

[Gronnie]

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.

I will beg to differ. People on foodstamps have a miserable life. For a single person to be on foodstamps, they'd be making sub-14500 gross or under 12000 net. We're on the MMM forum; even us super-frugal, do-it-yourselfers don't can't live that cheaply. I've seen threads on this forum. We think it is incredibly frugal to only spend 22K. To many of us, living on 12K is unimaginable.

I am going to confer to Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) argument on this subject of poor people buying unhealthy food while on the dole. If you're living that type of subsistence living, it is only natural to want to escape that misery. Even if it is just for a moment while drinking pop or having a bag of crisps. I don't begrudge suffering people taking a pain killer.

Or a "single" mother has a couple of kids and gets housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Father lives with the family and has a FT job, but father and mother aren't married and father claims his address is elsewhere (parent's or friend's house, etc). This is an extremely common scenario, and if they weren't gaming the system they wouldn't be eligible for all these handouts.

[Gin1984]

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.

I will beg to differ. People on foodstamps have a miserable life. For a single person to be on foodstamps, they'd be making sub-14500 gross or under 12000 net. We're on the MMM forum; even us super-frugal, do-it-yourselfers don't can't live that cheaply. I've seen threads on this forum. We think it is incredibly frugal to only spend 22K. To many of us, living on 12K is unimaginable.

I am going to confer to Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) argument on this subject of poor people buying unhealthy food while on the dole. If you're living that type of subsistence living, it is only natural to want to escape that misery. Even if it is just for a moment while drinking pop or having a bag of crisps. I don't begrudge suffering people taking a pain killer.

Or a "single" mother has a couple of kids and gets housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Father lives with the family and has a FT job, but father and mother aren't married and father claims his address is elsewhere (parent's or friend's house, etc). This is an extremely common scenario, and if they weren't gaming the system they wouldn't be eligible for all these handouts.

I love for you to show any evidence of this being common.  It is a common myth, started by Reagan, but there is no actual basis.

[shelivesthedream]

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.

I will beg to differ. People on foodstamps have a miserable life. For a single person to be on foodstamps, they'd be making sub-14500 gross or under 12000 net. We're on the MMM forum; even us super-frugal, do-it-yourselfers don't can't live that cheaply. I've seen threads on this forum. We think it is incredibly frugal to only spend 22K. To many of us, living on 12K is unimaginable.

I am going to confer to Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) argument on this subject of poor people buying unhealthy food while on the dole. If you're living that type of subsistence living, it is only natural to want to escape that misery. Even if it is just for a moment while drinking pop or having a bag of crisps. I don't begrudge suffering people taking a pain killer.

Or a "single" mother has a couple of kids and gets housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Father lives with the family and has a FT job, but father and mother aren't married and father claims his address is elsewhere (parent's or friend's house, etc). This is an extremely common scenario, and if they weren't gaming the system they wouldn't be eligible for all these handouts.

I love for you to show any evidence of this being common.  It is a common myth, started by Reagan, but there is no actual basis.

Some people are inexplicably desperate to think the worst of others.

[Goldielocks]

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.

I will beg to differ. People on foodstamps have a miserable life. For a single person to be on foodstamps, they'd be making sub-14500 gross or under 12000 net. We're on the MMM forum; even us super-frugal, do-it-yourselfers don't can't live that cheaply. I've seen threads on this forum. We think it is incredibly frugal to only spend 22K. To many of us, living on 12K is unimaginable.

I am going to confer to Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) argument on this subject of poor people buying unhealthy food while on the dole. If you're living that type of subsistence living, it is only natural to want to escape that misery. Even if it is just for a moment while drinking pop or having a bag of crisps. I don't begrudge suffering people taking a pain killer.

Or a "single" mother has a couple of kids and gets housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Father lives with the family and has a FT job, but father and mother aren't married and father claims his address is elsewhere (parent's or friend's house, etc). This is an extremely common scenario, and if they weren't gaming the system they wouldn't be eligible for all these handouts.

I love for you to show any evidence of this being common.  It is a common myth, started by Reagan, but there is no actual basis.

Yeah,  when I read that I thought how fortunate the kids were to have a dad at home, and I would be happy to support that, for sure.

[Raenia]

I will beg to differ. People on foodstamps have a miserable life. For a single person to be on foodstamps, they'd be making sub-14500 gross or under 12000 net. We're on the MMM forum; even us super-frugal, do-it-yourselfers don't can't live that cheaply. I've seen threads on this forum. We think it is incredibly frugal to only spend 22K. To many of us, living on 12K is unimaginable.

Not to be contrary, but I have lived on ~12k net, and I currently live on a hair over ~15k.  I not only can and did, I still had a good life doing it.  It's not the low expenses that make it a miserable life, it's the constant worry due to lack of buffer space for emergencies.

[TomTX]

I will beg to differ. People on foodstamps have a miserable life. For a single person to be on foodstamps, they'd be making sub-14500 gross or under 12000 net. We're on the MMM forum; even us super-frugal, do-it-yourselfers don't can't live that cheaply. I've seen threads on this forum. We think it is incredibly frugal to only spend 22K. To many of us, living on 12K is unimaginable.

Not to be contrary, but I have lived on ~12k net, and I currently live on a hair over ~15k.  I not only can and did, I still had a good life doing it.  It's not the low expenses that make it a miserable life, it's the constant worry due to lack of buffer space for emergencies.

I just re-read the original post. That's $12k per person, right? And that means something like $50/week in SNAP benefits, plus housing assistance, health insurance, etc?

Whoops. I just checked the Texas SNAP rules. It's actually $19.9k for a single, $33.7k for a family of 3.

The $33.7k is gross income (before taxes) - but I don't think EITC is "income"

That doesn't sound miserable.

[merula]

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.

I think you may have misunderstood what MrMoogle was saying. I agree with you that the current executive branch situation shows that there is a lot of racism in the US even without separate water fountains or lunch counters, and the actions of police against POC is horrific.

I think MrMoogle agrees with you too.

The overt stuff gets routinely denounced, by conservatives as well as liberals. (See: Republican leaders who denounced both the Charlottesville marches and Trump's reaction). Five years ago I would have said we were past the point of even needing to talk about the overt stuff, because it was so marginalized. Now, I would say we need to continue to address it so that it doesn't keep rearing its ugly head, but our focus should be on the more pervasive and subtle kinds of racism.

When MrMoogle says "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.", I hear him saying that he values black people, and presumably other minorities, but recognizes that ingrained racism can still affect his actions in ways that negatively impact those people. That's a hard thing to say, but it's true of all white people. Despite our best intentions, we don't fully understand what it's like to be on the other side, and that gap causes problems.

[mm1970]

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.

I will beg to differ. People on foodstamps have a miserable life. For a single person to be on foodstamps, they'd be making sub-14500 gross or under 12000 net. We're on the MMM forum; even us super-frugal, do-it-yourselfers don't can't live that cheaply. I've seen threads on this forum. We think it is incredibly frugal to only spend 22K. To many of us, living on 12K is unimaginable.

I am going to confer to Orwell's The Road to Wigan Pier (1937) argument on this subject of poor people buying unhealthy food while on the dole. If you're living that type of subsistence living, it is only natural to want to escape that misery. Even if it is just for a moment while drinking pop or having a bag of crisps. I don't begrudge suffering people taking a pain killer.

Or a "single" mother has a couple of kids and gets housing, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Father lives with the family and has a FT job, but father and mother aren't married and father claims his address is elsewhere (parent's or friend's house, etc). This is an extremely common scenario, and if they weren't gaming the system they wouldn't be eligible for all these handouts.

The thing is "everyone knows someone who knows someone" who is cheating the system.  But few people know anyone who is cheating the system.

I will say this:
- my sister's SIL has 2-3 kids, is on welfare, doesn't work, lives with her mom.  I know someone who knows someone.
- I used to work with a woman who had Section 8 housing.  She was a hard worker.  Had 2 jobs.  The second job meant that her rent went up/ voucher went down.  However, she *did* live with her boyfriend (illegally) who worked under the table.  Eventually she traded her 2 jobs for one higher paying job and bought a condo.  Last I checked her adult daughter was in school and was able to get a Section 8 voucher.  That was years ago.  So at least she got off welfare.
- I have, at times, worked with men who lived with their girlfriends and kids, but didn't marry.  In some cases, it's because the kids could get medicaid or food stamps.  (Sometimes both parents worked.) One of my coworkers asked out loud if he should put his kids on his insurance instead of medicaid?  But it would cost him money.  (Not a lot.)

However, studies have shown these cases to be few and far between.

I'll say something else.  Welfare does suck.  We were poor growing up but never eligible, to my knowledge, for welfare and food stamps.  It sucked and we had weeks with a bare cupboard and 16 cents till pay day.  I just finished reading a book This House Protected by Poverty by Frances Ransley.  Basically her life as a single parent with 4 kids, on welfare, unable to work for much of it because of a disability, but ineligible for disability pay.  A very eye opening look into Poverty and welfare, at least what it was like back in the 1980s.

It sucked.  It was hard to pay the bills. It was inordinately hard to get off of, when you consider the need for childcare, and the numerous hoops that you have to jump through to keep your paperwork up to date, to get school paid for, childcare paid for so that you can go to school, etc.

[Imma]

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 don't really think that before safety nets people made better, long-term focused decisions. More people just starved to death.

[dandarc]

. . .

Suggest you review the rules:

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/forum-rules/

[Cassie]

I was a social worker for awhile and M1970 is so right. Lots of reason for poverty and very difficult to escape. It takes a lot of support, money and time.  I had a friend on welfare that had 2 kids and wanted to go back to school. Her Mom died and she lost her free babysitter.  My husband & I babysat for free for 3 years, I enlisted her Dad and my Mom as backups since both were retired.  Then her last year they cut her food stamps because of her financial aid. She had to pay for books & tuition with that $.  She thought she was going to have to quit so she could feed her kids. We were far from rich but helped her with food as did her Dad.  We did not buy each other gifts so her kids had some gifts under the tree.  She graduated and got a job. It was awesome. However, look at the long term commitment and the number of people and money it took to make this happen.

[kayvent]

I was a social worker for awhile and M1970 is so right. Lots of reason for poverty and very difficult to escape. It takes a lot of support, money and time.  I had a friend on welfare that had 2 kids and wanted to go back to school. Her Mom died and she lost her free babysitter.  My husband & I babysat for free for 3 years, I enlisted her Dad and my Mom as backups since both were retired.  Then her last year they cut her food stamps because of her financial aid. She had to pay for books & tuition with that $.  She thought she was going to have to quit so she could feed her kids. We were far from rich but helped her with food as did her Dad.  We did not buy each other gifts so her kids had some gifts under the tree.  She graduated and got a job. It was awesome. However, look at the long term commitment and the number of people and money it took to make this happen.

What happened to the father of the two children?

[Dave1442397]

I just read this book a few days ago, and the author tells how no one in his family ever told him the importance of homework, getting good grades, how to apply to college, etc. It's tough to escape poverty when you don't know how. It was a good read.

Into the Magic Shop, by James Doty, MD.

https://www.amazon.com/Into-Magic-Shop-Neurosurgeons-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B00YBBKMHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506792215&sr=8-1&keywords=into+the+magic+shop+by+james+doty

[iris lily]

I just read this book a few days ago, and the author tells how no one in his family ever told him the importance of homework, getting good grades, how to apply to college, etc. It's tough to escape poverty when you don't know how. It was a good read.

Into the Magic Shop, by James Doty, MD.

https://www.amazon.com/Into-Magic-Shop-Neurosurgeons-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B00YBBKMHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506792215&sr=8-1&keywords=into+the+magic+shop+by+james+doty

Agreed, parental guidance and family culture is a very strong indicator of success. All of the yammering  about more money for poor urban schools (mine already has one of the highest per capita spending in the state) ignores that fact.

[infogoon]

I just read this book a few days ago, and the author tells how no one in his family ever told him the importance of homework, getting good grades, how to apply to college, etc. It's tough to escape poverty when you don't know how. It was a good read.

Those of us who grew up in middle class homes take it as a given that working hard in school to get a good education is the key to success, but it's got to be tough to believe that when you've grown up in poverty and literally never seen it happen.

[SwordGuy]

I just read this book a few days ago, and the author tells how no one in his family ever told him the importance of homework, getting good grades, how to apply to college, etc. It's tough to escape poverty when you don't know how. It was a good read.

Those of us who grew up in middle class homes take it as a given that working hard in school to get a good education is the key to success, but it's got to be tough to believe that when you've grown up in poverty and literally never seen it happen.

I went to a junior high and high school that was chock full of middle and upper middle class kids.   The overwhelming bulk of them had zero interest in getting good grades, or doing their homework, etc.   Many of those going to college picked their college because it was a party school or located in a part of the country they felt was "cool".

Based on many comments over many years by many teachers I have known, that problem has only gotten worse.

Americans are, by and large, the most expensively educated yet still ignorant people on the planet.   At least the poor have some excuse for that, the middle class do not.

[MgoSam]

I just read this book a few days ago, and the author tells how no one in his family ever told him the importance of homework, getting good grades, how to apply to college, etc. It's tough to escape poverty when you don't know how. It was a good read.

Into the Magic Shop, by James Doty, MD.

https://www.amazon.com/Into-Magic-Shop-Neurosurgeons-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B00YBBKMHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506792215&sr=8-1&keywords=into+the+magic+shop+by+james+doty

Agreed, parental guidance and family culture is a very strong indicator of success. All of the yammering  about more money for poor urban schools (mine already has one of the highest per capita spending in the state) ignores that fact.

It's unfortunate but for people that work in education, they can't fix parental involvement. I recall seeing a stat that success can pretty much be predicted by how many books a student's parents own. That sucks. I can speak from experience that my parents drove home the importance of education. If I had trouble in class they were always willing to help me with my homework or meetwo with my teachers or find someone willing to help me. I cannot imagine what it would be like to not have that.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

I just read this book a few days ago, and the author tells how no one in his family ever told him the importance of homework, getting good grades, how to apply to college, etc. It's tough to escape poverty when you don't know how. It was a good read.

Into the Magic Shop, by James Doty, MD.

https://www.amazon.com/Into-Magic-Shop-Neurosurgeons-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B00YBBKMHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506792215&sr=8-1&keywords=into+the+magic+shop+by+james+doty

Agreed, parental guidance and family culture is a very strong indicator of success. All of the yammering  about more money for poor urban schools (mine already has one of the highest per capita spending in the state) ignores that fact.

It's unfortunate but for people that work in education, they can't fix parental involvement. I recall seeing a stat that success can pretty much be predicted by how many books a student's parents own. That sucks. I can speak from experience that my parents drove home the importance of education. If I had trouble in class they were always willing to help me with my homework or meetwo with my teachers or find someone willing to help me. I cannot imagine what it would be like to not have that.

The notion that kids will absorb their parents' attitudes toward education is not completely accurate. My daughter had two years of my very best effort-- and if my book ownership was any predictor of her success she'd be Doogie Howser by now.  It didn't stick. I was able to get her through 10th grade and part of 11th, but ultimately the ready availability of a group of people who really, truly, honestly don't believe that education is important ended up being more of an influence.

I'm one of the best tutors in town, but ironically as an educator I've been an utter failure with my daughter. I did bring her reading level up from 2nd grade to 9th with some highly unorthodox methods, but I can't tutor someone who is not willing to look at the book, pick up a pencil, do an exercise, or do anything but pout or throw tantrums instead of completing an assignment or following the teacher's instructions or mine. My power is limited. I can only teach someone who wants to learn.

When a child who doesn't want to learn has access to a house where she or he can go instead of being in school, when there's someone willing to come pick the minor up from his or her home, take the minor out of that home, and drive the minor somewhere else without the parent's knowledge or consent, and when there are adults with vehicles ready and waiting to pick the minor up from school, the parent can't do a damn thing. School rules prohibit the parent from showing up to frog-march the high school student from one class to another, and because there are breaks between classes and students are entitled to bathroom breaks, a student who wants to escape from the school generally can. To keep a child in school therefore requires the united effort of an entire community, neighborhood, or extended family.

More than once, I've had one of my child's school friends ask if they could "hang out" at my place during school hours. I said no. My home is closed while my daughter is at school and I'm at work. Just because I occasionally work from home does not mean I'm available to babysit somebody who is playing truant. Unfortunately, nobody in my daughter's bio-family has that mentality. So she runs to the bio-family and to various lowlife friends (and in my opinion, anyone willing to sabotage a child's education is a lowlife) and POW! Not only does she get away with not being in school, but she sets off an enormous shitstorm.

The upshot of all of this is that my daughter, with a great deal of help from the lowlifes in her life, has chosen to be a pig-ignorant dropout. She's starting to figure out what she can actually afford with a dropout education and a dropout work ethic. It's not pretty and it's going to get uglier when she reaches her majority. She's chosen a life of extreme poverty because she refuses to do what it takes to get skills to exchange for an honest dollar.

Parental involvement means diddly-ding if there's a gigantic enabler network in place to reward dropout behavior or to at least delay its consequences. In the underclass, just such an enabler network exists. Plenty of people are thrilled to open their homes to a teen who ought to be in school, if it means that teen can babysit younger children while Mommy works, goes shopping, or naps. Lots of people are overjoyed to take a teen along to an ultrasound appointment, or the mall, or a hair or nail appointment during the day, just to have company. If the teen gets an allowance or has access to resources, clothing, or anything else that can be mooched away, so much the better! So the teen feels important and gets lots of what feels like love and respect, and gleefully deep-sixes his or her own education in order to gratify and enable various lowlifes. Result: eventually one more lowlife joins the herd.

[Imma]

I just read this book a few days ago, and the author tells how no one in his family ever told him the importance of homework, getting good grades, how to apply to college, etc. It's tough to escape poverty when you don't know how. It was a good read.

Into the Magic Shop, by James Doty, MD.

https://www.amazon.com/Into-Magic-Shop-Neurosurgeons-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B00YBBKMHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506792215&sr=8-1&keywords=into+the+magic+shop+by+james+doty

Agreed, parental guidance and family culture is a very strong indicator of success. All of the yammering  about more money for poor urban schools (mine already has one of the highest per capita spending in the state) ignores that fact.

It's unfortunate but for people that work in education, they can't fix parental involvement. I recall seeing a stat that success can pretty much be predicted by how many books a student's parents own. That sucks. I can speak from experience that my parents drove home the importance of education. If I had trouble in class they were always willing to help me with my homework or meetwo with my teachers or find someone willing to help me. I cannot imagine what it would be like to not have that.

I had a lot of help through a project by the local Rotary Club in high school. I come from a working class background and a dysfunctional family and I was mostly left to my own devices all through my childhood. I was the smart kid of the family so no one paid attention to me, there was no need to in their mind. Through school, I got a mentor from the Rotary Club. My mentor was the retired local chief of police and we would sit down and talk about my ambitions, what I wanted to do after high school, what I needed to do to get there. He arranged short internships for me through people in his network so I could try some things out.

The most important one was an internship at a newspaper. I had considered training as a journalist, because that job appealed to me. They advised me that they didn't hire anyone with only a degree in journalism: you need a proper education, writing is something that you learn on the job. I went on to take a law degree with minors in political science, cultural history and economics. My circumstances changed and I never actually even tried to become a journalist, but that broad academic background has been very important in my career. A lot of my working class friends chose very practical degrees, only to find out that employers preferred candidates with a broad academic background. In my country, you pay a set amount of tuition and you can take an unlimited amount of classes, so I definitely took advantage of that. It would have been more difficult if I had to pay per class, because I didn't have that much money.

[Abundant life]

I just read this book a few days ago, and the author tells how no one in his family ever told him the importance of homework, getting good grades, how to apply to college, etc. It's tough to escape poverty when you don't know how. It was a good read.

Into the Magic Shop, by James Doty, MD.

https://www.amazon.com/Into-Magic-Shop-Neurosurgeons-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B00YBBKMHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506792215&sr=8-1&keywords=into+the+magic+shop+by+james+doty

Agreed, parental guidance and family culture is a very strong indicator of success. All of the yammering  about more money for poor urban schools (mine already has one of the highest per capita spending in the state) ignores that fact.

It's unfortunate but for people that work in education, they can't fix parental involvement. I recall seeing a stat that success can pretty much be predicted by how many books a student's parents own. That sucks. I can speak from experience that my parents drove home the importance of education. If I had trouble in class they were always willing to help me with my homework or meetwo with my teachers or find someone willing to help me. I cannot imagine what it would be like to not have that.

The notion that kids will absorb their parents' attitudes toward education is not completely accurate. My daughter had two years of my very best effort-- and if my book ownership was any predictor of her success she'd be Doogie Howser by now.  It didn't stick. I was able to get her through 10th grade and part of 11th, but ultimately the ready availability of a group of people who really, truly, honestly don't believe that education is important ended up being more of an influence.

I'm one of the best tutors in town, but ironically as an educator I've been an utter failure with my daughter. I did bring her reading level up from 2nd grade to 9th with some highly unorthodox methods, but I can't tutor someone who is not willing to look at the book, pick up a pencil, do an exercise, or do anything but pout or throw tantrums instead of completing an assignment or following the teacher's instructions or mine. My power is limited. I can only teach someone who wants to learn.

When a child who doesn't want to learn has access to a house where she or he can go instead of being in school, when there's someone willing to come pick the minor up from his or her home, take the minor out of that home, and drive the minor somewhere else without the parent's knowledge or consent, and when there are adults with vehicles ready and waiting to pick the minor up from school, the parent can't do a damn thing. School rules prohibit the parent from showing up to frog-march the high school student from one class to another, and because there are breaks between classes and students are entitled to bathroom breaks, a student who wants to escape from the school generally can. To keep a child in school therefore requires the united effort of an entire community, neighborhood, or extended family.

More than once, I've had one of my child's school friends ask if they could "hang out" at my place during school hours. I said no. My home is closed while my daughter is at school and I'm at work. Just because I occasionally work from home does not mean I'm available to babysit somebody who is playing truant. Unfortunately, nobody in my daughter's bio-family has that mentality. So she runs to the bio-family and to various lowlife friends (and in my opinion, anyone willing to sabotage a child's education is a lowlife) and POW! Not only does she get away with not being in school, but she sets off an enormous shitstorm.

The upshot of all of this is that my daughter, with a great deal of help from the lowlifes in her life, has chosen to be a pig-ignorant dropout. She's starting to figure out what she can actually afford with a dropout education and a dropout work ethic. It's not pretty and it's going to get uglier when she reaches her majority. She's chosen a life of extreme poverty because she refuses to do what it takes to get skills to exchange for an honest dollar.

Parental involvement means diddly-ding if there's a gigantic enabler network in place to reward dropout behavior or to at least delay its consequences. In the underclass, just such an enabler network exists. Plenty of people are thrilled to open their homes to a teen who ought to be in school, if it means that teen can babysit younger children while Mommy works, goes shopping, or naps. Lots of people are overjoyed to take a teen along to an ultrasound appointment, or the mall, or a hair or nail appointment during the day, just to have company. If the teen gets an allowance or has access to resources, clothing, or anything else that can be mooched away, so much the better! So the teen feels important and gets lots of what feels like love and respect, and gleefully deep-sixes his or her own education in order to gratify and enable various lowlifes. Result: eventually one more lowlife joins the herd.

Wow, commiserations!
You mention your daughter's bio family - are you her bio parent? Just interested in the nature/nurture thing. Our son recently found his biological father whom we always thought would be anonymous. We have been amazed at the similarities in their lives, not just physical things but the same university, the same results, similar hobbies and interests, he even works in the same field as his biological grandfather.

[Letj]

I just read this book a few days ago, and the author tells how no one in his family ever told him the importance of homework, getting good grades, how to apply to college, etc. It's tough to escape poverty when you don't know how. It was a good read.

Into the Magic Shop, by James Doty, MD.

https://www.amazon.com/Into-Magic-Shop-Neurosurgeons-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B00YBBKMHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506792215&sr=8-1&keywords=into+the+magic+shop+by+james+doty

Agreed, parental guidance and family culture is a very strong indicator of success. All of the yammering  about more money for poor urban schools (mine already has one of the highest per capita spending in the state) ignores that fact.

It's not just family culture; it's also the prevailing culture where you live. I know plenty of people from developing countries whose family were dirt poor but the culture valued education and so the children worked hard in school even with no support at home. In fact, they did not have to be told to do their home work. They saw school as a way out of poverty.

[Letj]

I just read this book a few days ago, and the author tells how no one in his family ever told him the importance of homework, getting good grades, how to apply to college, etc. It's tough to escape poverty when you don't know how. It was a good read.

Into the Magic Shop, by James Doty, MD.

https://www.amazon.com/Into-Magic-Shop-Neurosurgeons-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B00YBBKMHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506792215&sr=8-1&keywords=into+the+magic+shop+by+james+doty

Agreed, parental guidance and family culture is a very strong indicator of success. All of the yammering  about more money for poor urban schools (mine already has one of the highest per capita spending in the state) ignores that fact.

It's unfortunate but for people that work in education, they can't fix parental involvement. I recall seeing a stat that success can pretty much be predicted by how many books a student's parents own. That sucks. I can speak from experience that my parents drove home the importance of education. If I had trouble in class they were always willing to help me with my homework or meetwo with my teachers or find someone willing to help me. I cannot imagine what it would be like to not have that.

The notion that kids will absorb their parents' attitudes toward education is not completely accurate. My daughter had two years of my very best effort-- and if my book ownership was any predictor of her success she'd be Doogie Howser by now.  It didn't stick. I was able to get her through 10th grade and part of 11th, but ultimately the ready availability of a group of people who really, truly, honestly don't believe that education is important ended up being more of an influence.

I'm one of the best tutors in town, but ironically as an educator I've been an utter failure with my daughter. I did bring her reading level up from 2nd grade to 9th with some highly unorthodox methods, but I can't tutor someone who is not willing to look at the book, pick up a pencil, do an exercise, or do anything but pout or throw tantrums instead of completing an assignment or following the teacher's instructions or mine. My power is limited. I can only teach someone who wants to learn.

When a child who doesn't want to learn has access to a house where she or he can go instead of being in school, when there's someone willing to come pick the minor up from his or her home, take the minor out of that home, and drive the minor somewhere else without the parent's knowledge or consent, and when there are adults with vehicles ready and waiting to pick the minor up from school, the parent can't do a damn thing. School rules prohibit the parent from showing up to frog-march the high school student from one class to another, and because there are breaks between classes and students are entitled to bathroom breaks, a student who wants to escape from the school generally can. To keep a child in school therefore requires the united effort of an entire community, neighborhood, or extended family.

More than once, I've had one of my child's school friends ask if they could "hang out" at my place during school hours. I said no. My home is closed while my daughter is at school and I'm at work. Just because I occasionally work from home does not mean I'm available to babysit somebody who is playing truant. Unfortunately, nobody in my daughter's bio-family has that mentality. So she runs to the bio-family and to various lowlife friends (and in my opinion, anyone willing to sabotage a child's education is a lowlife) and POW! Not only does she get away with not being in school, but she sets off an enormous shitstorm.

The upshot of all of this is that my daughter, with a great deal of help from the lowlifes in her life, has chosen to be a pig-ignorant dropout. She's starting to figure out what she can actually afford with a dropout education and a dropout work ethic. It's not pretty and it's going to get uglier when she reaches her majority. She's chosen a life of extreme poverty because she refuses to do what it takes to get skills to exchange for an honest dollar.

Parental involvement means diddly-ding if there's a gigantic enabler network in place to reward dropout behavior or to at least delay its consequences. In the underclass, just such an enabler network exists. Plenty of people are thrilled to open their homes to a teen who ought to be in school, if it means that teen can babysit younger children while Mommy works, goes shopping, or naps. Lots of people are overjoyed to take a teen along to an ultrasound appointment, or the mall, or a hair or nail appointment during the day, just to have company. If the teen gets an allowance or has access to resources, clothing, or anything else that can be mooched away, so much the better! So the teen feels important and gets lots of what feels like love and respect, and gleefully deep-sixes his or her own education in order to gratify and enable various lowlifes. Result: eventually one more lowlife joins the herd.

OMG. This is the best analysis of how a teen can sabotage their own education and is so representative of what I've personally seen happen to teen drop outs. There's always always adult enablers and other 'friends' enablers and there is not a darn thing any parent can do to stop this unless they are willing to make radical changes like moving away. It takes a united effort of the school, community and extended family and unfortunately not everyone values education and we don't live in a connected community anymore. My daughter is similar to your daughter in the sense that you can't make her do homework, turn in work for extra credit nor accept a tutor and I think a lot of it has to do with ADHD for which I have never given medication. However, as a junior in high school, she is beginning to connect the lack of ecucation with a mediocre life. What helps us is living in an area where she cannot walk to friend's house and not many people of her age are around to hang out with.

[fredbear]

...The upshot of all of this is that my daughter, with a great deal of help from the lowlifes in her life, has chosen to be a pig-ignorant dropout. She's starting to figure out what she can actually afford with a dropout education and a dropout work ethic. It's not pretty and it's going to get uglier when she reaches her majority. She's chosen a life of extreme poverty because she refuses to do what it takes to get skills to exchange for an honest dollar.

...

Aw, shit, GS, you've been foreshadowing this for months; I am as un-surprised as I am deeply sorry it has reached this point.  Declining a life of active, effective agency is so seductive.  God help her.  You've been silent as to substance abuse, and I hope that never plays a part here.  It's so poor as comfort, but sometimes you end with the thought that perhaps a seed will germinate, and you did all you could do, which is certainly true.

I have no very clear idea how early it starts, and how reversible it is.  Probably earlier than we want to acknowledge, and hardly at all.  I inherited an employee part of whose job was to do the monthly statistics.  After quite thoroughly training her, I went back to my job, but after a few months thought, "Wait a minute.  That can't be right."  And it was not right.  She had been making the numbers up, completely.  Every one of them.  The point here is the complete, total miss on communication, on world view.  To her, it was this weird mystery - the people above her in the office wanted numbers, God knows why.  They are just little patterns on a page.  But if that's what they want, that's what they get: she gave us numbers.  Obviously a number's a number.  Though she would not have said it this way, numbers are fungible.  You have a sheet of paper with the month labelled on the top; you stick numbers in; you've done your job.    To me, and the managers above me, numbers are an asymptotic approach to reality.  I reacted with a kind of horrified surprise, but also with indignation.  She faked the numbers.  How could you?  A blow at the roots of science, engineering, human cognition.  She, on the other hand, was sincerely baffled as to why I would be so upset.  It was just a bunch of numbers.   I realized, dimly, that there was no connection whatever between numbers and her daily reality.  I don't know how you bring this kind of thing home.  I didn't even try.  You at least have the comfort that you have tried as hard as a human can try.

[pachnik]

Yes, GrimSqueaker,  I am sorry things have come to this point for you.  I know how hard you worked from previous posts to keep this from happening.

[TheGrimSqueaker]

...

Adoptive. Out of foster care. I did make some progress, but ultimately the lowlifes are winning.

[former player]

...

Adoptive. Out of foster care. I did make some progress, but ultimately the lowlifes are winning.

So sorry.  It looks as though you did everything you could and it worked for quite a while, until the irresistible forces took over.  Do you have any plans for what to do when she reaches 18?

[Dave1442397]

I just read this book a few days ago, and the author tells how no one in his family ever told him the importance of homework, getting good grades, how to apply to college, etc. It's tough to escape poverty when you don't know how. It was a good read.

Into the Magic Shop, by James Doty, MD.

https://www.amazon.com/Into-Magic-Shop-Neurosurgeons-Mysteries-ebook/dp/B00YBBKMHA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1506792215&sr=8-1&keywords=into+the+magic+shop+by+james+doty

Agreed, parental guidance and family culture is a very strong indicator of success. All of the yammering  about more money for poor urban schools (mine already has one of the highest per capita spending in the state) ignores that fact.

It's unfortunate but for people that work in education, they can't fix parental involvement. I recall seeing a stat that success can pretty much be predicted by how many books a student's parents own. That sucks. I can speak from experience that my parents drove home the importance of education. If I had trouble in class they were always willing to help me with my homework or meetwo with my teachers or find someone willing to help me. I cannot imagine what it would be like to not have that.

The notion that kids will absorb their parents' attitudes toward education is not completely accurate. My daughter had two years of my very best effort-- and if my book ownership was any predictor of her success she'd be Doogie Howser by now.  It didn't stick. I was able to get her through 10th grade and part of 11th, but ultimately the ready availability of a group of people who really, truly, honestly don't believe that education is important ended up being more of an influence.

I'm one of the best tutors in town, but ironically as an educator I've been an utter failure with my daughter. I did bring her reading level up from 2nd grade to 9th with some highly unorthodox methods, but I can't tutor someone who is not willing to look at the book, pick up a pencil, do an exercise, or do anything but pout or throw tantrums instead of completing an assignment or following the teacher's instructions or mine. My power is limited. I can only teach someone who wants to learn.

When a child who doesn't want to learn has access to a house where she or he can go instead of being in school, when there's someone willing to come pick the minor up from his or her home, take the minor out of that home, and drive the minor somewhere else without the parent's knowledge or consent, and when there are adults with vehicles ready and waiting to pick the minor up from school, the parent can't do a damn thing. School rules prohibit the parent from showing up to frog-march the high school student from one class to another, and because there are breaks between classes and students are entitled to bathroom breaks, a student who wants to escape from the school generally can. To keep a child in school therefore requires the united effort of an entire community, neighborhood, or extended family.

More than once, I've had one of my child's school friends ask if they could "hang out" at my place during school hours. I said no. My home is closed while my daughter is at school and I'm at work. Just because I occasionally work from home does not mean I'm available to babysit somebody who is playing truant. Unfortunately, nobody in my daughter's bio-family has that mentality. So she runs to the bio-family and to various lowlife friends (and in my opinion, anyone willing to sabotage a child's education is a lowlife) and POW! Not only does she get away with not being in school, but she sets off an enormous shitstorm.

The upshot of all of this is that my daughter, with a great deal of help from the lowlifes in her life, has chosen to be a pig-ignorant dropout. She's starting to figure out what she can actually afford with a dropout education and a dropout work ethic. It's not pretty and it's going to get uglier when she reaches her majority. She's chosen a life of extreme poverty because she refuses to do what it takes to get skills to exchange for an honest dollar.

Parental involvement means diddly-ding if there's a gigantic enabler network in place to reward dropout behavior or to at least delay its consequences. In the underclass, just such an enabler network exists. Plenty of people are thrilled to open their homes to a teen who ought to be in school, if it means that teen can babysit younger children while Mommy works, goes shopping, or naps. Lots of people are overjoyed to take a teen along to an ultrasound appointment, or the mall, or a hair or nail appointment during the day, just to have company. If the teen gets an allowance or has access to resources, clothing, or anything else that can be mooched away, so much the better! So the teen feels important and gets lots of what feels like love and respect, and gleefully deep-sixes his or her own education in order to gratify and enable various lowlifes. Result: eventually one more lowlife joins the herd.

Things may still work out. I have two friends who met while she was a waitress and he was a barman at a spring break kind of bar in Florida. Suddenly, (oops) she was pregnant, and they had to make some decisions about what to do with their lives. She is now a Civil Engineer with an upper-level management position, and he is an Anesthesiologist. They started later than most, but they made it work.

[firelight]

I'm so sorry GrimSqueaker. I've seen some adults like this (parents are good while kid is a lowlife) and wondered at the disconnect. Now I get it. Should be horrifying to deal with it at close quarters. Since you are legally responsible for the kid, can you call the cops on the adults that aid her in skipping school? Taking kids illegally from school is abduction. Cops called a few times might discourage the lowlife adults from aiding in skipping school.

[Uturn]

I really don't know where I come down on the nature vs nurture debate.  I look at my family and it is all over the board.  To the best of my knowledge, I'm the only adult male who has never has sex with a family member and/or an under aged girl.  I'm one of the few who don't have a criminal record.  I do know that being different from the rest of your family is hard to do.  I am still regarded as the "college boy sellout", although I never even enrolled.  I started figuring it out when I was around 11.  Fathers shouldn't be having sex with daughters, stealing is wrong, gaming the welfare system is not right, even if it is "paid for by the rich people."  My father and his father ran a small auto repair business in the late 70's/ early 80's.  The real money came from the chop shop.  I still remember them explaining to me that we are not stealing from people, we are taking from the insurance companies.  And it's not really taking from the insurance companies because they are still making profit.  I think they actually believed that.  I also remember them calling me a faggot because I was still a virgin at 12.  There were two sisters and about 5 female cousins around afterall. I am so glad that I left as soon as possible.  I also purposefully keep my distance from the majority of my family. 

My oldest sister is 50, and she is just now getting her shit straight.  My other sister is a year younger, and figured it out in her mid 30's.  She is doing fine.  Runs her own business and has a loving husband who also got away from a deadbeat family.  I am doing great financially, have a few good friends, but have never had a relationship that lasted more than 3 years.  I will say that I do not at all feel comfortable being alone with any girls between about age 5 to 20.  I don't have those desires, but can understand one having them.  That understanding alone bothers me.  My younger brother, who killed himself a few months ago, never did get his footing.  He was probably about $100/mo from being homeless, and I suspect he was a few times.  8 years ago he asked if he could move in with me.  He has 2 felony convictions for ID theft and fraud.  I told him that he could, but he would need to leave the drugs in California, $400/mo for rent and utilities, pay for his own food.  I would cover everything for 2 months at the beginning.   If he stole from me, he is out that day.  If he got arrested, he is out 2 weeks after his release.  3 months before his suicide, he posted on FB about how his older brother turned his back on him. 

4 kids, all from the same fucked up background.  4 very different life outcomes. 

[Paul der Krake]

I really don't know where I come down on the nature vs nurture debate.  I look at my family and it is all over the board.  To the best of my knowledge, I'm the only adult male who has never has sex with a family member and/or an under aged girl.  I'm one of the few who don't have a criminal record.  I do know that being different from the rest of your family is hard to do.  I am still regarded as the "college boy sellout", although I never even enrolled.  I started figuring it out when I was around 11.  Fathers shouldn't be having sex with daughters, stealing is wrong, gaming the welfare system is not right, even if it is "paid for by the rich people."  My father and his father ran a small auto repair business in the late 70's/ early 80's.  The real money came from the chop shop.  I still remember them explaining to me that we are not stealing from people, we are taking from the insurance companies.  And it's not really taking from the insurance companies because they are still making profit.  I think they actually believed that.  I also remember them calling me a faggot because I was still a virgin at 12.  There were two sisters and about 5 female cousins around afterall. I am so glad that I left as soon as possible.  I also purposefully keep my distance from the majority of my family. 

My oldest sister is 50, and she is just now getting her shit straight.  My other sister is a year younger, and figured it out in her mid 30's.  She is doing fine.  Runs her own business and has a loving husband who also got away from a deadbeat family.  I am doing great financially, have a few good friends, but have never had a relationship that lasted more than 3 years.  I will say that I do not at all feel comfortable being alone with any girls between about age 5 to 20.  I don't have those desires, but can understand one having them.  That understanding alone bothers me.  My younger brother, who killed himself a few months ago, never did get his footing.  He was probably about $100/mo from being homeless, and I suspect he was a few times.  8 years ago he asked if he could move in with me.  He has 2 felony convictions for ID theft and fraud.  I told him that he could, but he would need to leave the drugs in California, $400/mo for rent and utilities, pay for his own food.  I would cover everything for 2 months at the beginning.   If he stole from me, he is out that day.  If he got arrested, he is out 2 weeks after his release.  3 months before his suicide, he posted on FB about how his older brother turned his back on him. 

4 kids, all from the same fucked up background.  4 very different life outcomes.

Wow.

Forget about posting in this thread, that story deserves its own book.

[Step37]

...I also purposefully keep my distance from the majority of my family.  .

Small wonder.

I honestly do not understand how anyone can get him/herself removed from such a situation. What a feat. You have my admiration.