"We had no choice" -American Poor

[thepokercab]

Their counterparts are a different story though, as I feel no compassion for someone who doesn't contribute to society and acts like a parasite. These people are feeding off of the government and making it our problem to keep them alive, and people here think the answer is handing them more money or upping their starting wage. That makes as much sense as giving a drug addict MORE drugs to get them on the right path.

I couldn't agree more.  Corporate welfare is out of control in this country. 

[Baylor3217]

IMHO, we all come from different walks of life, but coming from a poverty level situation shouldn't entitle you to a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to having responsibility for yourself and your actions.

My grandparents were dirt poor but had respect for their surroundings, themselves and never played the "poor me, I need special treatment cause I just don't have the skills" card. Their house was always the cleanest on the block, they worked hard for what little they had and dealt with things much more severe that what todays generation has had to deal with.

Thats quite the opposite of todays low to no income population, who seem to be given more by the government and required to do less for it, paving the way for more "entitled" low income future generations content with their IPhones but not a job that pays under $10 per hour. Its just too easy nowadays to sit back and make excuse after excuse after excuse for why things haven't lined up in your life.

Just my $0.02

A lot of wisdom in this post.

What I have found a bit fascinating about this board is the number of people that want financial freedom yet don't even understand the ways in which the government has made them a slave to supporting the poor with "wealth" transfer to those less fortunate or unwilling to work hard.

This will not go on forever and will eventually end very badly. It's just a question of when. Of course, to be clear, when the government gives something to someone, the thing they gave they took from you...or your kids...or your grand kids....or after the last 8 years, your great great great great grandkids.

Why do both of you seem to think that poor people don't work hard?  Most poor paying jobs are where people work the hardest.  To paint the poor as lazy because they don't make much money is just asinine.  Ever cleaned a house?  Worked in a restaurant?  Day laborer?  Those are fucking hard work, as are the vast majority of poor paying jobs.

non sequitur much?  where did I say poor people don't work hard? there are poor people that don't work hard.  There are rich people that don't work hard.  You don't lift up the lower class by bringing down the middle class?  The "rich" are never punished by any of these governmental actions.  In fact, they more often than not benefit from them.  The middle class, however, which is probably most people on this board, are crushed by those actions with little to no tangible benefit to show for it.

poor people who AREN'T willing, but ARE able, to work hard, should NOT benefit at the expense of those that are paying the bills.

We can then debate how "working hard" is defined. 

[ChrisLansing]

I'm sympathetic to the poor and working poor.   I'm not going to try to convince anyone, I'll just hope that can be accepted as a fact. 

That said, certainly the poor do make bad financial decisions, for a variety of reasons.     If we continue to provide welfare in it's various forms , which we certainly should do, and if we raise the minimum wage to $10.10, as we should, or even to $15 as Seattle has done, we will still be reading stories about people having their utilities shut off yet refusing to switch to a cheaper cell plan.   

If we are going to be serious about helping the poor we are going to have to figure out how to increase their financial savvy.   I don't know if they need a "face punch" or a gentle hand holding, but they definitely need to change their behavior or they'll be trapped by the same bad decisions.     If the behavior never changes then their situation never changes.         

[Baylor3217]

What I have found a bit fascinating about this board is the number of people that want financial freedom yet don't even understand the ways in which the government has made them a slave to supporting the poor with "wealth" transfer to those less fortunate or unwilling to work hard.

Actually, what's unsustainable is vast income/wealth inequality. Societies with a middle class and social mobility thrive; societies with an upper and lower class collapse, like the Roman empire did (this has been covered in numerous studies and sources). So we could look at it not as "redistribution," but as "paying for a system that supports a stable society with an educated workforce and not sick, starving people robbing you in the street"

And oh, everyone's favorite "the poor are lazy" fallacy. Exhibit A: A whopping 2% of welfare disbursements go to people who could work, but don't. 91% go to the elderly, disabled, and working households (>1000 hrs/year). (The other 6% is explained, too) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677 Exhibit B: 19% receive benefits for <7mos, and only 19% for over 5 years. http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

And yet, the gap between rich and poor has only significantly expanded in recent years during the greatest expansion of unfunded spending on entitlements in the history of this country.  And yet:

- there are fewer people in the workforce today than when Jimmy Carter was president

- The number of women out of the work force hits an ALL TIME HIGH

- Fully 1 in 6 people are on food stamps

Now, we've had a near century of perpetually encroaching socialism which only leads to more spending and yet many many measures of progress have only gotten worse.  So clearly, the answer is to give "them" more money, whoever "them" is, as the number of "not thems" footing the bill only gets smaller and smaller.

That math will work out.  Taking just a little more of our paychecks will help to solve this problem, whether you "mind it" or not.

[Baylor3217]

I do seem to recall that this has been tried, most recently in Britain in the '50 and '60s.  Not a resounding success.

Churchill argued vehemently against the socialism Britain had just helped defeat that then was taking their nation by storm in the years following the war.

[PeteD01]

There is no way this thread is going to go anywhere until every participant gets their head around what reification means. The poor, the rich, the middle class and whatever are not categories in which one can get a handle on behavioral issues as they pertain to individuals, families and other associations of people.
Corvette club members are going to be obsessed with Corvettes and as long as your object of observation is Corvette clubs you will find an obsession with Corvettes. The fallacy is to make Corvette obsession a defining characteristic of a group of people because the obsession was the selection criterion in the first place. What that means is that, in addition to the reification error, any conclusion drawn in this way is likely to be tautological.
"The Poor" does not exist, nor does the middle class. Class does exist and is more or less correlated with economic fortune and misfortune. It is, surprisingly to some, much easier to cross over to another level of prosperity than it is to transcend class distinctions. The first step would be to acknowledge what class one actually belongs to. The middle class, in particular, has a problem with that and consequently has a penchant to pour scorn upon the lower class. I don't know if this is primarily driven by the fear to fail and fall down again or by the unfounded suspicion that they still belong "down there" and are actually faking it. Support for the latter is found in the vicious attacks on what generally can be called aping of conspicuous middle class consumption whereas the aggressiveness of the attacks is probably related to the former.
A more benign explanation of typical middle class scorn for the less advantaged is that the middle class is generally oblivious to matters of class and perceives their place in society as something earned and so naturally available to anyone putting in sufficient effort. The problem is that virtually all members of the socioeconomic middle class were privileged from the start or on the way. Be it to have been born in a wealthy country with the right gender or simply having had the luck to grow up with the right set of friends. All these things are undeserved privileges and the proper attitude is to be at least slightly embarrassed about it.
I know that talking about class is somewhat uncomfortable but recognizing where one stands and how undeserved it actually is in the grand scheme of things goes a long way in promoting a kinder attitude towards the less fortunate.

[Baylor3217]

The degree to which people can exploit unemployment is terrible.

You mean like the software contractors who make $200,000 a year but are forced to take a 6 month cooling off period every 18 months?  Most (all?) of the ones I know collect unemployment during those 6 months.

I'd probably do it too if I were a contractor instead of a full timer.

Unemployment is a necessary thing, no doubt. We are very fortunate as a country to have it. That said, it has ridiculous loopholes. People should not be able to collect while never looking for work.

Welfare and worker's compensation are the same concepts. There are people that need welfare to survive and there are people that get severely disabled and cannot physically work. But saying you have back pain or coming out of a fender bender claiming you're unable to work makes it so easy to exploit things.

This goes against the ideology of the current administration that has worked to undo one of the great political accomplishments of the 90s by the Republican congress and a more center leaning Clinton to put these kinds of checks and balances in place in welfare reform.  The key strength of that legislation was removed by the current administration a year or two ago.  Similar things have been done with unemployment.

[PeteD01]

The degree to which people can exploit unemployment is terrible.

You mean like the software contractors who make $200,000 a year but are forced to take a 6 month cooling off period every 18 months?  Most (all?) of the ones I know collect unemployment during those 6 months.

I'd probably do it too if I were a contractor instead of a full timer.

Unemployment is a necessary thing, no doubt. We are very fortunate as a country to have it. That said, it has ridiculous loopholes. People should not be able to collect while never looking for work.

Welfare and worker's compensation are the same concepts. There are people that need welfare to survive and there are people that get severely disabled and cannot physically work. But saying you have back pain or coming out of a fender bender claiming you're unable to work makes it so easy to exploit things.

This goes against the ideology of the current administration that has worked to undo one of the great political accomplishments of the 90s by the Republican congress and a more center leaning Clinton to put these kinds of checks and balances in place in welfare reform.  The key strength of that legislation was removed by the current administration a year or two ago.  Similar things have been done with unemployment.

Oh, potential abuse of a welfare program is what is important to discuss. That is what politicians do when they can't think of anything else. Yawn :-)

[Deano]

I wish people on this forum would be more sympathetic to the working poor. Many of them make poor decisions, yes, but don't underestimate the additional handicaps caused by growing up in an environment where everyone models those poor choices. Those barriers aren't insurmountable, but it's unfair to expect people to magically acquire soft skills when they have very few chances to do so.

Fuck that they bring it on themselves.  I came from a poor environment where everyone made terrible financial decisions.  They still do.  Once I was able to start thinking on my own though I realized how foolish they were (and still are) with money.

My sister is constantly bitching about money and even says she doesn't have the $500 required to send her kid to summer camp for 8 weeks (they get a steep discount as my mother works as a counselor at this camp during the summer).   I showed them republic wireless plan and did the math showing how they could save a little over $100/mo if they make the switch and she scoffed at the idea.  She has her iphone and she likes it - despite being able to save $1200+/year as a family.   Even though she has a car loan.  And $10,000 in cc debt.  And lives at home with our parents (in a house I own).

Of course, in your world, exceptions become rules. We get it. You've achieved your space in the middle class and now you sneer at the others. Well done.

[Psychstache]

Actually, the fact is 25% of the population has a below average IQ (the other 25% are above average), but a high IQ is not required for many high paying (though possibly low status) jobs and careers.

Eh? Where does the other 50% lie?

They would be the average (the middle quartiles sandwiched by the Above and Below Average)

[Deano]

What I have found a bit fascinating about this board is the number of people that want financial freedom yet don't even understand the ways in which the government has made them a slave to supporting the poor with "wealth" transfer to those less fortunate or unwilling to work hard.

Actually, what's unsustainable is vast income/wealth inequality. Societies with a middle class and social mobility thrive; societies with an upper and lower class collapse, like the Roman empire did (this has been covered in numerous studies and sources). So we could look at it not as "redistribution," but as "paying for a system that supports a stable society with an educated workforce and not sick, starving people robbing you in the street"

And oh, everyone's favorite "the poor are lazy" fallacy. Exhibit A: A whopping 2% of welfare disbursements go to people who could work, but don't. 91% go to the elderly, disabled, and working households (>1000 hrs/year). (The other 6% is explained, too) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677 Exhibit B: 19% receive benefits for <7mos, and only 19% for over 5 years. http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

And yet, the gap between rich and poor has only significantly expanded in recent years during the greatest expansion of unfunded spending on entitlements in the history of this country.  And yet:

- there are fewer people in the workforce today than when Jimmy Carter was president

- The number of women out of the work force hits an ALL TIME HIGH

- Fully 1 in 6 people are on food stamps

Now, we've had a near century of perpetually encroaching socialism which only leads to more spending and yet many many measures of progress have only gotten worse.  So clearly, the answer is to give "them" more money, whoever "them" is, as the number of "not thems" footing the bill only gets smaller and smaller.

That math will work out.  Taking just a little more of our paychecks will help to solve this problem, whether you "mind it" or not.

A century of encroaching socialism? Really? Do you know what the top tax rate was in the 50's? 95%. What is it now McCarthy? Something like 30? It sure as hell isn't 95 I'll tell you that. The social contract has been rolling back in the US for the past 30 years. Inequality is at it's highest since the 20's-is that socialism? You should be pumped with that fact Joe.

[galliver]

What I have found a bit fascinating about this board is the number of people that want financial freedom yet don't even understand the ways in which the government has made them a slave to supporting the poor with "wealth" transfer to those less fortunate or unwilling to work hard.

Actually, what's unsustainable is vast income/wealth inequality. Societies with a middle class and social mobility thrive; societies with an upper and lower class collapse, like the Roman empire did (this has been covered in numerous studies and sources). So we could look at it not as "redistribution," but as "paying for a system that supports a stable society with an educated workforce and not sick, starving people robbing you in the street"

And oh, everyone's favorite "the poor are lazy" fallacy. Exhibit A: A whopping 2% of welfare disbursements go to people who could work, but don't. 91% go to the elderly, disabled, and working households (>1000 hrs/year). (The other 6% is explained, too) http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677 Exhibit B: 19% receive benefits for <7mos, and only 19% for over 5 years. http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

And yet, the gap between rich and poor has only significantly expanded in recent years during the greatest expansion of unfunded spending on entitlements in the history of this country.  And yet:

- there are fewer people in the workforce today than when Jimmy Carter was president

- The number of women out of the work force hits an ALL TIME HIGH

- Fully 1 in 6 people are on food stamps

Now, we've had a near century of perpetually encroaching socialism which only leads to more spending and yet many many measures of progress have only gotten worse.  So clearly, the answer is to give "them" more money, whoever "them" is, as the number of "not thems" footing the bill only gets smaller and smaller.

That math will work out.  Taking just a little more of our paychecks will help to solve this problem, whether you "mind it" or not.

Clearly it is only the welfare system that needs to be scrutinized, not what has happened to the earnings of the wealthy and corporations and the kinds of jobs available without a college education (and the cost thereof) and the ability to unionize and, oh yeah, the buying power of the minimum wage.

I'm not for giving out more government money. I'm for valuing labor at what it's worth, for making "minimum wage" not synonymous with "poverty level" and making corporations pay their workers adequately. Other changes, too, but that would be a start.

[iris lily]

Some years ago, I got to attend a presentation or two from a sociologist.  I can't do it justice in a relatively short bit of text on a forum, but basically her idea was that the socioeconomic status you grow up in helps cement some of your values, which changes your thinking in ways you don't realize sometimes...


In less words, it was like a crude spectrum from poverty to wealth, meaning you could blend poor and middle, or middle and wealthy, but you just couldn't have
Like all academic theories, this was all very interesting and it seemed at least somewhat valid in modeling the world at large, but it really offers few practical solutions in and of itself.

That was interesting and you did a decent job in giving it justice. I always find these class issues interesting. I am always glad to have been born into America's middle class where I think there is freedom to do whatcha wanna do because the social strictures are not  there as they are for the wealthy and the financial strictures aren't there as they are for those in poverty.

As far as "practical solution" you must think that society can eliminate poverty if only we find the right, key solutions. OTOH I think that poverty will always be with us for the reasons cited in your sociologist's body of knowledge.

[thepokercab]

A century of encroaching socialism? Really? Do you know what the top tax rate was in the 50's? 95%. What is it now McCarthy? Something like 30? It sure as hell isn't 95 I'll tell you that. The social contract has been rolling back in the US for the past 30 years. Inequality is at it's highest since the 20's-is that socialism? You should be pumped with that fact Joe.

Why get pumped with those facts, when you can watch Fox News and get pumped up with your own special facts.   

[Cwadda]

The degree to which people can exploit unemployment is terrible.

You mean like the software contractors who make $200,000 a year but are forced to take a 6 month cooling off period every 18 months?  Most (all?) of the ones I know collect unemployment during those 6 months.

I'd probably do it too if I were a contractor instead of a full timer.

Unemployment is a necessary thing, no doubt. We are very fortunate as a country to have it. That said, it has ridiculous loopholes. People should not be able to collect while never looking for work.

Welfare and worker's compensation are the same concepts. There are people that need welfare to survive and there are people that get severely disabled and cannot physically work. But saying you have back pain or coming out of a fender bender claiming you're unable to work makes it so easy to exploit things.

This goes against the ideology of the current administration that has worked to undo one of the great political accomplishments of the 90s by the Republican congress and a more center leaning Clinton to put these kinds of checks and balances in place in welfare reform.  The key strength of that legislation was removed by the current administration a year or two ago.  Similar things have been done with unemployment.

Yep, Clinton and all of his $500 haircuts of taxpayer money. 

[Jamesqf]

Why do both of you seem to think that poor people don't work hard?  Most poor paying jobs are where people work the hardest.  To paint the poor as lazy because they don't make much money is just asinine.  Ever cleaned a house?  Worked in a restaurant?  Day laborer?  Those are fucking hard work, as are the vast majority of poor paying jobs.

Why do you think those of us who got out of poverty don't have experience working that sort of job?  I've worked in restaurants, cleaned resort hotel rooms, worked as field labor, and much else.  Why on Earth do so many people who apparently come from a middle or upper class background think they know so much more about being poor, and how to stop peing poor, than those of us who've actually "been there and done that"?

[SwordGuy]

Why do you think those of us who got out of poverty don't have experience working that sort of job?  I've worked in restaurants, cleaned resort hotel rooms, worked as field labor, and much else.  Why on Earth do so many people who apparently come from a middle or upper class background think they know so much more about being poor, and how to stop peing poor, than those of us who've actually "been there and done that"?

Yes!  Exactly!

[MrsPete]

If we want these issue to go down, wages need to go up and we need to educate the poor class.

Thing is, in our high schools we're offering excellent choices for kids who want to go straight into a trade and start making money right away.  At my high school a kid can study these things to prepare for a trade:

- CNA-1 certification, allowing the new graduate to work at a low level in health care
- A certification in auto mechanics
- Skills that allow the student to begin working as an electrician's helper
- A certification in culinary skills and food safety to allow the student to work as a manager in food service
- A state certification allowing the student to either cut hair or work on nails (again, lots of overlap)
- Skills to allow the student to begin working as a bricklayer
- Next year we're adding a welding class, which I think will take off, and we'll add upper levels later

AND the other high schools in my county offer different options!  A student who has his own transportation can take his basic English and math at our home school . . . and then drive over to another high school where they offer fire safety and EMT training. 

OPTIONS ABOUND!  Yet our at-risk students (who are mostly poverty-level kids AND low-ability students) usually do not choose to take these classes.  They (and their parents) cannot be convinced that these classes are a good idea!  Instead, they insist that they're shooting for the top: They're going to college to be neurosurgeons and lawyers.  They cannot see that a high school career with a D average will never see them to those professions, and they see these realistic options as "below them".  The most useless diploma that we issue to a high school student (and we give out quite a few of these) is a college prep diploma with a D average GPA; that student took all the right classes for college, but has not shown the mastery necessary for that next step.

This is slightly off topic, and obviously variable by geography, but the HS graduation rate just reached an all time high of 80% nationwide.

The real question is, of course, do we actually have more students doing well in high school . . . or are we lowering standards and providing 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th chances for students who aren't doing the right thing the first time?  As a person who's in the middle of this, I can tell you it's the second.  Schools are under tremendous pressure to get more students to graduate, so it's happening. 

It happened to two students in my class this time last year, and I fully expect to see it in a few weeks as graduation draws nearer:  Two of my seniors clearly weren't going to graduate.  The girl had horrible attendance, slept in class constantly (no matter what I did), didn't keep up with her reading.  I had called her parents all year, I had let her guidance counselor know, I had let administration know.  By every measure that existed, she failed and was not going to graduate.  She failed every 6-week grading period, and four days before graduation she failed the state exam.  So what happened?  They had her stay after school and take a computer class, and in those four days she was suddenly able to pass my year-long class.  No, she isn't the smart student who is capable of doing that.  She barely speaks English.  But she graduated. 

Another example:  I had a boy in that same class who was trouble.  He was constantly suspended, constantly in trouble with me (and every other teacher).  Never did his class work, smart-mouthed everyone, read nothing.  Like the girl described above, he failed every 6-week grading period, and I'd spoken to all the right people, who -- like me -- failed to motivate him to do his work.  But they didn't let him stay in my class 'til the bitter end.  Instead, two weeks before graduation they pulled him out and put him into a self-contained class, where suddenly all the grades I'd given him all year long were wiped away, and he just colored a few pictures and was given credit for my academic class.  And he graduated. 

So, before you feel too good about our graduation rate going up, ask whether the number of students being admitted to 4-year universities is increasing.  Ask whether our number of students admitted to community colleges without deficiencies is increasing.  Ask whether our SAT and ACT scores are going up. 

[Gin1984]

If we want these issue to go down, wages need to go up and we need to educate the poor class.

Thing is, in our high schools we're offering excellent choices for kids who want to go straight into a trade and start making money right away.  At my high school a kid can study these things to prepare for a trade:

- CNA-1 certification, allowing the new graduate to work at a low level in health care
- A certification in auto mechanics
- Skills that allow the student to begin working as an electrician's helper
- A certification in culinary skills and food safety to allow the student to work as a manager in food service
- A state certification allowing the student to either cut hair or work on nails (again, lots of overlap)
- Skills to allow the student to begin working as a bricklayer
- Next year we're adding a welding class, which I think will take off, and we'll add upper levels later

AND the other high schools in my county offer different options!  A student who has his own transportation can take his basic English and math at our home school . . . and then drive over to another high school where they offer fire safety and EMT training. 

OPTIONS ABOUND!  Yet our at-risk students (who are mostly poverty-level kids AND low-ability students) usually do not choose to take these classes.  They (and their parents) cannot be convinced that these classes are a good idea!  Instead, they insist that they're shooting for the top: They're going to college to be neurosurgeons and lawyers.  They cannot see that a high school career with a D average will never see them to those professions, and they see these realistic options as "below them".  The most useless diploma that we issue to a high school student (and we give out quite a few of these) is a college prep diploma with a D average GPA; that student took all the right classes for college, but has not shown the mastery necessary for that next step.

This is slightly off topic, and obviously variable by geography, but the HS graduation rate just reached an all time high of 80% nationwide.

The real question is, of course, do we actually have more students doing well in high school . . . or are we lowering standards and providing 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th chances for students who aren't doing the right thing the first time?  As a person who's in the middle of this, I can tell you it's the second.  Schools are under tremendous pressure to get more students to graduate, so it's happening. 

It happened to two students in my class this time last year, and I fully expect to see it in a few weeks as graduation draws nearer:  Two of my seniors clearly weren't going to graduate.  The girl had horrible attendance, slept in class constantly (no matter what I did), didn't keep up with her reading.  I had called her parents all year, I had let her guidance counselor know, I had let administration know.  By every measure that existed, she failed and was not going to graduate.  She failed every 6-week grading period, and four days before graduation she failed the state exam.  So what happened?  They had her stay after school and take a computer class, and in those four days she was suddenly able to pass my year-long class.  No, she isn't the smart student who is capable of doing that.  She barely speaks English.  But she graduated. 

Another example:  I had a boy in that same class who was trouble.  He was constantly suspended, constantly in trouble with me (and every other teacher).  Never did his class work, smart-mouthed everyone, read nothing.  Like the girl described above, he failed every 6-week grading period, and I'd spoken to all the right people, who -- like me -- failed to motivate him to do his work.  But they didn't let him stay in my class 'til the bitter end.  Instead, two weeks before graduation they pulled him out and put him into a self-contained class, where suddenly all the grades I'd given him all year long were wiped away, and he just colored a few pictures and was given credit for my academic class.  And he graduated. 

So, before you feel too good about our graduation rate going up, ask whether the number of students being admitted to 4-year universities is increasing.  Ask whether our number of students admitted to community colleges without deficiencies is increasing.  Ask whether our SAT and ACT scores are going up.

That may be at your school, but not all schools have these things.  And honestly, we need to get rid of NCLB, start expelling kids for not doing the work and make a high school diploma mean something. I'm pissed that those kids were allowed to do that, that is something that should never occur.  Kids should be tracked and we need to remove the kids that are making it harder for those who want to learn.  But that still means teaching and we need jobs that are high school diploma and decent job.  My mom earned over six figures with high school diploma.  The first one you mentioned, in the same area as my mom only makes $31,000 with same amount of hours (I only know this because my mom worked with nurses and bargained the contracts).  Our high school diploma, not extra things not all school have used to mean something, why have we taken that away.

[Melody]

Why do you think those of us who got out of poverty don't have experience working that sort of job?  I've worked in restaurants, cleaned resort hotel rooms, worked as field labor, and much else.  Why on Earth do so many people who apparently come from a middle or upper class background think they know so much more about being poor, and how to stop peing poor, than those of us who've actually "been there and done that"?

Yes!  Exactly!

I've worked my share of entry level customer service gigs (supermarkets and the like in order to pay my rent while at university) and it ain't a quarter as hard as my current white collar professional role. When I worked at the supermarket, I could do my job (and perform adequately) with a hangover and four hours of sleep. If I was sick I could call in sick without feeling guilty about the fact my co-workers were going to have to work a couple of hours of (unpaid) overtime each to get done what I should have been doing that day (because they could just offer the shift to someone else). Not to mention that my training at the supermarket involved 8 hours in the "classroom" and four hours supervised before they let me loose. This training was all paid. For my current job, an undergraduate degree and post grad studies were required (Cost $30K, plus 3 years full time foregone earnings and 3 years of forgone social life while studying part time for post grad). Most importantly though, when I clocked out, I clocked out and didn't think of work until I put on my uniform for my next shift.

Yes, I'd much rather be doing what I'm doing now and I'm fortunate to have the brains to enter a profession, a government sponsored student loan scheme and supportive family to help me get there, but the level of effort, stress and responsibility is far higher than in an minimum wage job.

[BTW, Australian, here so totally agree with living wage concept... which here means $16-18 an hour. Yes, my haircut and restaurant meal cost a little more, but I don't need to tip, and you know what, I can dine out a little less often and stretch time between haircuts from 8 weeks to 12... My hairdresser and waitress can't pay less rent or eat less groceries because they are in a low paid service industry. I mean they can pay less rent and spend less on groceries to a point, but below that point they'd be living in their cars and dumpster diving, so you know what I mean. Our unemployment rate is still well under 7% and as we offer lifetime benefits, the data is relatively more complete than in the USA, where no lifetime benefits means many people are no longer counted. So living wages can work.]

[TomTX]

I personally think this:

Cut unemployment to 52 week max to find a job and tighten restrictions on people that barely have to show anything
The degree to which people can exploit unemployment is terrible.

It was already cut back to 26 weeks, 5 months ago.

[Luck12]

So, before you feel too good about our graduation rate going up, ask whether the number of students being admitted to 4-year universities is increasing.  Ask whether our number of students admitted to community colleges without deficiencies is increasing.  Ask whether our SAT and ACT scores are going up.

SAT scores from the time they were re-centered in 1995 to now have stayed about the same so I'm not convinced students are less intelligent and educated than they used to be many years ago.  This despite the fact a lot more students (i.e. more of the "lower" students) take the SAT now.   

[Luck12]

I personally think this:

Cut unemployment to 52 week max to find a job and tighten restrictions on people that barely have to show anything
The degree to which people can exploit unemployment is terrible.

It was already cut back to 26 weeks, 5 months ago.

LOL no kidding.  But you know, they heard on Faux News unemployment benefits last nearly 2 years and that abuse of unemployment and SNAP benefits costs each taxpayer thousands of dollars so obviously it must be true! 

[Cwadda]

I personally think this:

Cut unemployment to 52 week max to find a job and tighten restrictions on people that barely have to show anything
The degree to which people can exploit unemployment is terrible.

It was already cut back to 26 weeks, 5 months ago.

 It's still exploitable. The bottom line is there is little incentive to look for a new job and much incentive to NOT look.

[Jamesqf]

My mom earned over six figures with high school diploma.  The first one you mentioned, in the same area as my mom only makes $31,000 with same amount of hours (I only know this because my mom worked with nurses and bargained the contracts).

I bet your mom didn't make that 6-figure income right out of high school, though.  Instead, she started at the bottom, somewhere close to whatever would have been equivalent to $31K back then, and worked her way up.  That's part of the problem: a lot of people today want & expect the big salaries right out of school, not seeing that most of the people earning them took decades to work up to that level.

[Leisured]

It is important to remember that people living in rich counties cannot live adequately on $7.25 an hour. If the American poor were paid more, they may waste more, but there is still more chance that they would pay their bills.

I live in Australia, and agree with Melody that we pay rather more than Americans for restaurant meals and haircuts because, in the main, we do not have cheap labor, and are proud of that. No tipping, except in expensive restaurants.

Now for a speculative idea. I grew up in late fifties and sixties Australia, when wages were high, due to ruthless union power, and unemployment was almost zero. Same idea; no cheap labor, and we were proud of that. Workers working on assembly lines and steel mills knew they were doing useful work, and they were somebody. Now that useful work has been moved overseas, many workers, even further up the social scale, suspect they are no longer doing useful work, and this may affect their self-regard, and they may behave irrationally as a result.

Consider the US during WW2. The US was free from enemy bombardment, and it could feed itself. The economy ran flat out, and there was a labor shortage. Aircraft, tanks and artillery poured off assembly lines, destined for the American military and other Allied combatants. Ships slid off slip ways. Industrial workers, men and women, were important, and they knew it. The country pulled together, and everybody was part of a grand project. Wages were high, and presumably morale was high too.

It is difficult to recreate anything similar today, but the objective is to recreate a feeling of well-being.

An ironical twist. Large factories during WW2 often had subsidised canteens for their workers, serving good food. Today, many workers make poor wages working in junk food outlets.

[Deano]

As a friend of mine has pointed out more than once, poor people often stay poor because they keep doing the sort of things that make them poor. Same for rich people.

My understanding is that poor people do the things they do to stay poor, because they are poor. Scarcity effects decision making-all kinds of scarcity, it doesn't matter what kind.

Here is an interesting interview on the topic to get you started, then you can find the research that this is based on and make your own conclusions.
http://www.npr.org/2014/01/02/259082836/how-scarcity-mentaly-affects-our-thinking-behavior

I know that this research flies in the face of the typical bourgeois mantra on this forum (I got here because I'm smarter/better-which, I'm sorry to say, you aren't)-but it's a dose of reality. This forum loves to poke fun at people who's decision making abilities are either impaired by their perceived scarcity, or who's decisions are sometimes quite rational, but the middle class bullshit smeared on our little monocle obscures our ability to see that.

I sometimes shudder at how nasty this forum can be.

[ChrisLansing]

As a friend of mine has pointed out more than once, poor people often stay poor because they keep doing the sort of things that make them poor. Same for rich people.

My understanding is that poor people do the things they do to stay poor, because they are poor. Scarcity effects decision making-all kinds of scarcity, it doesn't matter what kind.

Here is an interesting interview on the topic to get you started, then you can find the research that this is based on and make your own conclusions.
http://www.npr.org/2014/01/02/259082836/how-scarcity-mentaly-affects-our-thinking-behavior

I know that this research flies in the face of the typical bourgeois mantra on this forum (I got here because I'm smarter/better-which, I'm sorry to say, you aren't)-but it's a dose of reality. This forum loves to poke fun at people who's decision making abilities are either impaired by their perceived scarcity, or who's decisions are sometimes quite rational, but the middle class bullshit smeared on our little monocle obscures our ability to see that.

I sometimes shudder at how nasty this forum can be.

   


I saw this back in Jan. when it first appeared.    I agree with you that the comments are sometimes too nasty, and that there are reasons why the poor (and middle class) make the bad decisions they make.     

But the thing is, this doesn't have to be set in stone.   The poor can learn to make better decisions, and if we really care about helping the poor, some training in decision making seems necessary.   

I'm all in favor of raising the minimum wage.   But a year or two from now we'll still be reading similar stories of people with $12,000 in credit card debt.       

It's pretty clear that the fed. minimum wage isn't going to be raised to $15 and hour.    The Congress won't even agree to $10.  (They can't even get a vote on it, preferring to filibuster)   Maybe after the elections.    It's clear there is always going to be a poverty wage, or near poverty wage in the US.   We just are not the kind of society that cares enough to establish an actual living wage.   Therefore, some "bad ass" financial skills are going to be necessary for the lowest paid workers. 

[Deano]

As a friend of mine has pointed out more than once, poor people often stay poor because they keep doing the sort of things that make them poor. Same for rich people.

My understanding is that poor people do the things they do to stay poor, because they are poor. Scarcity effects decision making-all kinds of scarcity, it doesn't matter what kind.

Here is an interesting interview on the topic to get you started, then you can find the research that this is based on and make your own conclusions.
http://www.npr.org/2014/01/02/259082836/how-scarcity-mentaly-affects-our-thinking-behavior

I know that this research flies in the face of the typical bourgeois mantra on this forum (I got here because I'm smarter/better-which, I'm sorry to say, you aren't)-but it's a dose of reality. This forum loves to poke fun at people who's decision making abilities are either impaired by their perceived scarcity, or who's decisions are sometimes quite rational, but the middle class bullshit smeared on our little monocle obscures our ability to see that.

I sometimes shudder at how nasty this forum can be.

   


I saw this back in Jan. when it first appeared.    I agree with you that the comments are sometimes too nasty, and that there are reasons why the poor (and middle class) make the bad decisions they make.     

But the thing is, this doesn't have to be set in stone.   The poor can learn to make better decisions, and if we really care about helping the poor, some training in decision making seems necessary.   

I'm all in favor of raising the minimum wage.   But a year or two from now we'll still be reading similar stories of people with $12,000 in credit card debt.       

It's pretty clear that the fed. minimum wage isn't going to be raised to $15 and hour.    The Congress won't even agree to $10.  (They can't even get a vote on it, preferring to filibuster)   Maybe after the elections.    It's clear there is always going to be a poverty wage, or near poverty wage in the US.   We just are not the kind of society that cares enough to establish an actual living wage.   Therefore, some "bad ass" financial skills are going to be necessary for the lowest paid workers.

If we pay someone a middle-class wage and they screw it up, we should have carte blanche to make fun of them-but if we pay someone 7 bucks an hour and expect them to make solid decisions at every turn-we should just shut our cake holes.

The thing is, we really can't teach the poor to make better decisions-their perceived (and real) scarcities screw it up-usually. We can teach the middle class-which I believe this blog/forum is aimed at, no?

[TomTX]

I personally think this:

Cut unemployment to 52 week max to find a job and tighten restrictions on people that barely have to show anything
The degree to which people can exploit unemployment is terrible.

It was already cut back to 26 weeks, 5 months ago.

 It's still exploitable. The bottom line is there is little incentive to look for a new job and much incentive to NOT look.

How exactly? I have a pretty smart and determined friend who has been unemployed for ~9 months. She even hired a company/coach to help get her a good job. She hasn't found any loopholes.

[Roland of Gilead]

She even hired a company/coach to help get her a good job. She hasn't found any loopholes.

This may be part of the problem (I don't know her situation though).  Sometimes people refuse to accept that they may need to take a lower level job to get back into the workforce.  I am not talking McDonalds but sometimes you can't reenter at a senior level if the market has shifted or you are just not top tier talent.

[thepokercab]

I personally think this:

Cut unemployment to 52 week max to find a job and tighten restrictions on people that barely have to show anything
The degree to which people can exploit unemployment is terrible.

It was already cut back to 26 weeks, 5 months ago.

 It's still exploitable. The bottom line is there is little incentive to look for a new job and much incentive to NOT look.

Have you ever actually been on unemployment, or tried to get it on it?  Do you picture people showing up to the office and just walking away with baskets full of cash for years at a time?   

In my state its not quite as lucrative.  After collecting and submitting about 10 different types of documentation to prove eligibility and citizenship, as well as verifying your previous employer paid unemployment insurance taxes + your salary was at a minimum threshold; well then that sweet sweet nectar starts flowing, at a MAXIMUM rate of $260 dollars a week.  Which, I think would prompt anyone to have the following reaction:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbfwqjg_mpU

And, how long does this gravy train last you might ask.  A whole 26 weeks.   Oh, and you need to file a report every week with proof that your looking for work, And if you miss one report?  The gravy train ends. Just not a lot of incentive here to find work.

Of course these "handouts" pale in comparison to the 100 billion plus in corporate welfare we dole out on a regular basis, because, priorities.   

[MrFancypants]

Of course these "handouts" pale in comparison to the 100 billion plus in corporate welfare we dole out on a regular basis, because, priorities.   

If you're going to rail against tax incentives for businesses, then that means removing that advantage for everybody, not just the uses of it which you do not like.

[luigi49]

IMHO, we all come from different walks of life, but coming from a poverty level situation shouldn't entitle you to a "get out of jail free card" when it comes to having responsibility for yourself and your actions.

My grandparents were dirt poor but had respect for their surroundings, themselves and never played the "poor me, I need special treatment cause I just don't have the skills" card. Their house was always the cleanest on the block, they worked hard for what little they had and dealt with things much more severe that what todays generation has had to deal with.

Thats quite the opposite of todays low to no income population, who seem to be given more by the government and required to do less for it, paving the way for more "entitled" low income future generations content with their IPhones but not a job that pays under $10 per hour. Its just too easy nowadays to sit back and make excuse after excuse after excuse for why things haven't lined up in your life.

Just my $0.02

A lot of wisdom in this post.

What I have found a bit fascinating about this board is the number of people that want financial freedom yet don't even understand the ways in which the government has made them a slave to supporting the poor with "wealth" transfer to those less fortunate or unwilling to work hard.

This will not go on forever and will eventually end very badly. It's just a question of when. Of course, to be clear, when the government gives something to someone, the thing they gave they took from you...or your kids...or your grand kids....or after the last 8 years, your great great great great grandkids.

Why do both of you seem to think that poor people don't work hard?  Most poor paying jobs are where people work the hardest.  To paint the poor as lazy because they don't make much money is just asinine.  Ever cleaned a house?  Worked in a restaurant?  Day laborer?  Those are fucking hard work, as are the vast majority of poor paying jobs.

I have to agree with this.  There is a lot of dynamic involve in this argument.   I work for the government and a lot of times they encourage this behavior too.  Its called job security.  :)

[thepokercab]

Of course these "handouts" pale in comparison to the 100 billion plus in corporate welfare we dole out on a regular basis, because, priorities.   

If you're going to rail against tax incentives for businesses, then that means removing that advantage for everybody, not just the uses of it which you do not like.

I'm not against all, as you call them, tax incentives, for multi-national corporations. My point, is that if we're going to demonize social welfare in this country,  you'd think there would be more concern about the free money we're printing up for companies that would do just fine without it.

But, if i'm following your logic correctly, apparently If i'm against tax incentives, for multi-national corporations, I have to be against unemployment benefits for people who lost their jobs.   I guess I would respectfully disagree.   

[MrFancypants]

I'm not against all, as you call them, tax incentives, for multi-national corporations. My point, is that if we're going to demonize social welfare in this country,  you'd think there would be more concern about the free money we're printing up for companies that would do just fine without it.

But, if i'm following your logic correctly, apparently If i'm against tax incentives, for multi-national corporations, I have to be against unemployment benefits for people who lost their jobs.   I guess I would respectfully disagree.   

I'm not the person who thinks that social welfare is bad, it certainly has its place.  What I'm saying is that I don't believe you should be able to pick and choose exactly what potentially beneficial entities should or should not receive tax breaks.  Business provides a set of benefits to a community, much in the same way as other entities which receive those benefits...  such as religious organizations, private schools, research organizations, etc.

Besides, exactly how would you go about restricting tax benefits to those organizations?  So Congress decides that there will be no more public tax breaks for multinational corporations at the federal level....  what's to stop the states from providing breaks to try to encourage one company or another to establish business in their state versus another state?

[Jamesqf]

It is important to remember that people living in rich counties cannot live adequately on $7.25 an hour.

The problem here is possibly your definition of 'adequately', combined with the idea that any individual holding minimum wage jobs should be an ongoing thing.  Minimum wage is (or should be) where you start.

I'd also like you to notice that a large number of illegal immigrants (to the US) work such low-wage jobs, yet live and usually manage to send money home.

Consider the US during WW2. The US was free from enemy bombardment, and it could feed itself. The economy ran flat out, and there was a labor shortage. Aircraft, tanks and artillery poured off assembly lines, destined for the American military and other Allied combatants. Ships slid off slip ways. Industrial workers, men and women, were important, and they knew it. The country pulled together, and everybody was part of a grand project. Wages were high, and presumably morale was high too.

And how long did it take the country to recover from those four years of debt-financed spending?  Here's a link to a nice overview: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-01-13-economic-recovery-depression_N.htm?csp=34  Important points here are first, that the US really hasn't repaid its WWII debt, it just kept refinancing and inflating it away, and second "World War II was a finite event, and it's pretty easy to stop war spending and bring the budget back into balance — or close to it — when the war is over."

[Jamesqf]

My understanding is that poor people do the things they do to stay poor, because they are poor. Scarcity effects decision making-all kinds of scarcity, it doesn't matter what kind.

You're missing something which those of us who've been poor keep trying to tell you, which is that when we were poor, we faced exactly those sorts of pressures, and we made different decisions, which is why we're not poor any more.  Which gives the lie to your claim that 'poor people' are all the same, or universally incapable of making good decisions.

[Gin1984]

My understanding is that poor people do the things they do to stay poor, because they are poor. Scarcity effects decision making-all kinds of scarcity, it doesn't matter what kind.

You're missing something which those of us who've been poor keep trying to tell you, which is that when we were poor, we faced exactly those sorts of pressures, and we made different decisions, which is why we're not poor any more.  Which gives the lie to your claim that 'poor people' are all the same, or universally incapable of making good decisions.

She is talking averages here.  And yes, studies have shown that if you have scarcity, it does often affect your decision making.

[SwordGuy]

Most people without the skills associated with a traditional high school education (as opposed to the dumbed down version we too often see today) lack the skills necessary to succeed in life.

Yes, there are exceptions.  There are a few of them. That's why they're exceptions.

What are these skills?  Well, there are important life skills that have to be mastered well enough to get a high school degree.  Skills like:

• Putting up with BS.
• Putting up with boredom.
• Sucking it up and just doing what you have to do even though you don't enjoy it.
• Getting along with others.
• Not being a complete pain in the ass to those in authority.
• Showing up.
• Paying attention.
• Learning how to learn.
• Doing it over and over until you learn it.
• Basic math.
• Basic reading.
• Basic civics.
• Basic writing.
• Basic research.
• Basic science.

People without these skills almost always have a much harder time succeeding.  They will tend to be the last hired and the first laid off or fired.  They will tend to make the least money when working.  They will be thrown onto unemployment more often.  They will be unable to pay for medical care more often.

And they will tend to raise children to be just like them, perpetuating the problem.

I think we need to recognize how seriously important a traditional high school education is in today's society.

First, we make it a felony to fix grades so people pass a grade they didn't earn.   Yep, a felony.  And disbar the individual from working in any school setting ever again.  It's that serious.   And the person(s) who turn them in get to keep all the felon's assets if the felon is single or 1/2 the assets if married, just to lower the odds that they will collude with one another to hide their activities.  Yep, I'm a hardass.

Second, we let students know that if they fail to earn an high school degree (and they are mentally and physically capable of doing so), they will suffer the following penalties in life until they earn said degree:

• 1/2 unemployment benefits because they will use them more often than others.
• No tax-payer funded welfare of any kind  If they don't think they are worth the time to prepare themselves for life in our society, we will agree they aren't worth saving.
• No tax-payer funded medical care of any kind - other than to reduce the risk of spreading a contagious disease to others.  Again, if they have decided they aren't worth anything, we should treat them accordingly.
• Double prison and probation time, double fines.  If they earn a hs degree, the sentence immediately reverts to normal length. Make hs classes available in prison.  The doubled portion of the fines is returned.

[li]Fine the parents for their child's failure to move up a grade.  If the child's performance does not improve, fine the parents again and take the child away from the failing parents. If it's the 2nd child, take all the kids who are younger than the problem child away.  Not only let someone adopt them, but give them a whopping tax credit for doing so.  (And simplify the adoption rules dramatically, but that's a different issue.)
[/li][/list]

Simply put, the motto is "Starve or Learn".

Keep schools open at night with an open enrollment for those who want to come back to school and get their degree.  Keep at least one school open during the day if need be, for those who can't find day work. 

Students should be taught on day one that they are there to prepare themselves to be successful adults.  Whether they have fun doing that or not is up to them and the attitude they bring with them to the task.

Serious tough love.

There are a host of kids who need that lesson regardless of socio-economic background.

As for college, free tuition for the first 2 semesters, provided they meet actual college level enrollment standards.  After that, it is totally dependent upon grades. If the grade point average is a C and there are no F grades, then we pay the next semester's tuition.  If not, the student pays the tuition for their next semester.   This keeps us from wasting so much money on people who won't or can't do the work.  It opens up a wealth of opportunity for the poor and middle class students which is of value to our national economy.

[thepokercab]

My understanding is that poor people do the things they do to stay poor, because they are poor. Scarcity effects decision making-all kinds of scarcity, it doesn't matter what kind.

You're missing something which those of us who've been poor keep trying to tell you, which is that when we were poor, we faced exactly those sorts of pressures, and we made different decisions, which is why we're not poor any more.  Which gives the lie to your claim that 'poor people' are all the same, or universally incapable of making good decisions.

(emphasis mine)

I see what you're saying, but I feel like your argument is the one that makes the claim that all poor people are the same.  You're basically implying that all poor people face the exact same sorts of pressures as you did, and that all poor people are afforded the same range of decisions that you had. In that type of vacuum, yes, we could assume that all people are the same, and one set of people simply make a different set of decisions than others, and that's it.  But its more complicated than that.  People are different; people face different challenges, live in different environments, grow up with different experiences and role models, live in different social orders which impose different values and influence the range of decisions they have, or think they have. 

[Deano]

My understanding is that poor people do the things they do to stay poor, because they are poor. Scarcity effects decision making-all kinds of scarcity, it doesn't matter what kind.

You're missing something which those of us who've been poor keep trying to tell you, which is that when we were poor, we faced exactly those sorts of pressures, and we made different decisions, which is why we're not poor any more.  Which gives the lie to your claim that 'poor people' are all the same, or universally incapable of making good decisions.

I never said that. If you read it, that's your problem. We are talking about generalizations here, yes, some poor people get rich. That isn't the rule, that's the exception. The exception however, is not the rule.

[Jamesqf]

My understanding is that poor people do the things they do to stay poor, because they are poor. Scarcity effects decision making-all kinds of scarcity, it doesn't matter what kind.

You're missing something which those of us who've been poor keep trying to tell you, which is that when we were poor, we faced exactly those sorts of pressures, and we made different decisions, which is why we're not poor any more.  Which gives the lie to your claim that 'poor people' are all the same, or universally incapable of making good decisions.

I never said that. If you read it, that's your problem. We are talking about generalizations here, yes, some poor people get rich. That isn't the rule, that's the exception. The exception however, is not the rule.

You're still missing the point - which is that instead of bewailing the 'fact' that poor people just can't possibly make good decisions, so poverty has to be fixed by handing out piles of other people's money (which not-so-incidentally provides well paid jobs for the bureaucrats doing the handing out), you'd have better luck figuring out how to get more poor people to make good decisions.  One obvious way to do that is to study the people who DID make good decisions, and try to figure out why they were different from the rest.

[Argyle]

SwordGuy, your plan was tried in Victorian England.  Dickens wrote about it extensively.

I think we have to keep in mind what it's really like for kids in the poorest neighborhoods.  I grew up in one.  A lot of kids were scared to go to school because the gangs roaming the streets would try to kill you if you weren't in their gang.  If your life was threatened on your way to school, you'd think twice about going.  And fining the parents of underperforming kids!  I have to laugh. I knew a girl in high school who was sitting on the sofa with her younger sister, watching TV, when her mother sat down next to her and committed suicide by shooting herself in the head.  After that the girl was failing school.  Her aunt supposedly moved into the same apartment to help take care of her and the little sister (note -- they're in the same apartment!  the same sofa!), but the aunt wasn't always around so it was up to her to keep her little sister going.  Then one day the aunt just took off, or disappeared, or who knows?  Maybe was killed.  I don't know what the end of that story was.  But to say that the problem with this girl's life could be solved by fining her parents and denying her all welfare and medical help ... it just beggars belief.  And what would she do then?  I can almost hear Scrooge saying it: "Are there no prisons?  Are there no workhouses?"

The options open to her, if she were denied state help, would probably be prostitution and drug-running.  If she were a boy, undoubtedly robbery, burglary, and the like.  Supporting yourself in those conditions, single-handedly, with no support and no help ... what are the chances this would end well?

The chaos, sorrow, and horror of the lives of many of the people in these areas is beyond description.  We don't do anyone any favors to pretend otherwise.

[Gin1984]

My mom earned over six figures with high school diploma.  The first one you mentioned, in the same area as my mom only makes $31,000 with same amount of hours (I only know this because my mom worked with nurses and bargained the contracts).

I bet your mom didn't make that 6-figure income right out of high school, though.  Instead, she started at the bottom, somewhere close to whatever would have been equivalent to $31K back then, and worked her way up.  That's part of the problem: a lot of people today want & expect the big salaries right out of school, not seeing that most of the people earning them took decades to work up to that level.

But the problem is, her job now requires a four year degree and you can't move into it like she did (it did pay more than than the equivalent of $31K but she had a job she was able to parley into it) and most of the jobs that were listed don't allow you to increase your pay like she did.  That is what concerns me. 

[frugalnacho]

I wish people on this forum would be more sympathetic to the working poor. Many of them make poor decisions, yes, but don't underestimate the additional handicaps caused by growing up in an environment where everyone models those poor choices. Those barriers aren't insurmountable, but it's unfair to expect people to magically acquire soft skills when they have very few chances to do so.

Fuck that they bring it on themselves.  I came from a poor environment where everyone made terrible financial decisions.  They still do.  Once I was able to start thinking on my own though I realized how foolish they were (and still are) with money.

My sister is constantly bitching about money and even says she doesn't have the $500 required to send her kid to summer camp for 8 weeks (they get a steep discount as my mother works as a counselor at this camp during the summer).   I showed them republic wireless plan and did the math showing how they could save a little over $100/mo if they make the switch and she scoffed at the idea.  She has her iphone and she likes it - despite being able to save $1200+/year as a family.   Even though she has a car loan.  And $10,000 in cc debt.  And lives at home with our parents (in a house I own).

Of course, in your world, exceptions become rules. We get it. You've achieved your space in the middle class and now you sneer at the others. Well done.

So you agree she should continue to prioritize her expensive iphone plan and consumer whoring over paying down debt and providing for her child? Interesting.

[MrFancypants]

  And fining the parents of underperforming kids!  I have to laugh.

This reminds me of the hair brained idea to reduce funding to schools where kids perform poorly on standardized tests.

Yeah, that'll teach those schools, surely they'll figure out how to turn things around if you give them fewer resources!

[dcheesi]

My mom earned over six figures with high school diploma.  The first one you mentioned, in the same area as my mom only makes $31,000 with same amount of hours (I only know this because my mom worked with nurses and bargained the contracts).

I bet your mom didn't make that 6-figure income right out of high school, though.  Instead, she started at the bottom, somewhere close to whatever would have been equivalent to $31K back then, and worked her way up.  That's part of the problem: a lot of people today want & expect the big salaries right out of school, not seeing that most of the people earning them took decades to work up to that level.

But the problem is, her job now requires a four year degree and you can't move into it like she did (it did pay more than than the equivalent of $31K but she had a job she was able to parley into it) and most of the jobs that were listed don't allow you to increase your pay like she did.  That is what concerns me.

This. My gf joined a very large, conservative company in an entry-level position. Her older relatives had no problem moving up in this company over the years, so she had every reason to expect similar opportunities. But after she started working there, they started imposing college degree requirements on pretty much all of the jobs that she would normally be qualified to move into. So now she's stuck in a crappy low-paying position until she can get a piece of paper with her name on it.

[Roland of Gilead]

I wish there was a way to control the breeding.  We do it with dogs and cats but it is a third rail for politicians.  Maybe if Bob Barker had gotten behind it...

[rosaz]

Ok I jumped in late to the discussion and it had already moved on, but... I love my iPhone. Yeah, go ahead and bash it, but I would please ask all the smartphone haters out there who DON'T OWN A CAR to raise their hands? When you rely on unreliable buses to get you around (and have a young child in an area that feels unsafe to use a bike trailer), the bus tracking apps (and the maps) are, quite simply, a godsend. Please don't dismiss that unless you've actually been there (and I don't mean for a few days when your car broke down - I'm talking day in and day out - in sickness and health, in whatever hellish conditions your local weather sometimes likes to throw at you).

And yes there are cheaper smartphones available, but iPhones are (as some earlier posters mentioned) considered more reliable. Also, since many iPhone users upgrade incessantly, there's quite a lot of them floating around on the used market. Unlocked ones at that, with cheaper data plans available. I don't understand the assumption these folks are all paying retail (unless the assumption is that of course they make bad decisions because they're poor; and those poor people are only poor because they make bad decisions! Circular argument)

Now, could I do it without a smartphone? Sure. And most car-owners on here could do without their cars. For the record, I don't live in an urban core. And I've been carless (and bonus points - heavily pregnant!) in fun places like suburban Texas where the buses don't bother running on the weekends. It's do-able (albeit miserable). So you know what? If I can refrain from asshole-ish comments about what a bunch of profligate fools all car-owners are everytime a car is mentioned, maybe the smartphone-less on here can manage a bit of grace about other people having priorities they may not fully understand.

Rant over :)