The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: Gin1984 on May 16, 2016, 11:19:09 AM
-
Interesting new research shows how the households that would benefit most from cost savings are the least able to access them.
<MOD NOTE: Quote one or two paragraphs, not the whole article>
http://www.treehugger.com/culture/hunting-deals-and-buying-bulk-rich-persons-privilege.html
I find this idea interesting because many of the ways we save on here come from a position of having money to start. Even being on ting which saved me a ton meant that I had money to by the phone upfront. I feel the last line makes a big statement here too. Access means that those in poverty do change their behavior.
-
Also many poor neighborhoods are within what is called a food desert with no big grocery chains in walking distance so people are forced to shop at higher priced stores for food.
-
Households generally save money in two ways – looking for good deals and buying in bulk. Interestingly, these money-saving tactics are utilized more by high-income households than low-income ones. ” Researchers tracked the purchase of toilet paper for seven years by more than 100,000 American families from different financial backgrounds. Toilet paper was selected for the study because it is often sold in bulk, frequently on sale, non-perishable, and easy to store, and a household’s need for it cannot be met by another product.
I guess I'm letting out household financial info, I'm sure we have over 400 rolls of toilet paper and 300 rolls of paper towels. Yes, all bought on sale and probably with a coupon. We are empty nesters and one of the kids room has stacks as high as my wife can reach. I could be under estimating the amounts! My wife is the frugal bulk shopper.
-
Hmm... we have a small apartment and no car, yet somehow manage to buy a lot of things in bulk without causing any upticks in spending.
It doesn't cost much to get started on bulk purchasing. A several-month sack of rice here costs $10-$20 depending on size. We pay $6-$7 for 20lbs of flour, which is a month of bread, bread-ish main dishes (pot pie, burritos, pizza, empanadas, etc) and baking for two people. Sure, you can buy 400 rolls of TP, but realistically as long as you're not buying individual rolls from 7-11, you shouldn't be spending very much on that.
I certainly hope none of the people complaining about not being able to afford to buy in bulk have cable or expensive phone packages, as a single month of those bills would be enough to build a HUGE surplus of dry goods.
-
Thanks for sharing
-
I have been on both sides of this and agree with that article.
Sure, a $10 to $20 bag of rice doesn't sound expensive. Unless you only have $20 to last the rest of the week and want something to put on top of your rice!
When I was poor and struggling I usually stole toilet paper from my university. Yep, not too proud of that.
Since I'm good at math and planning I could SEE those deals, I understood that buying in bulk was the better long-term plan, abut I could rarely afford to do so. I vividly remember buying a bulk pack of Venus razors from Costco. It seemed like an exorbitant splurge and I agonized about spending so much at once. That was probably 10 years ago and I still have unopened razor blades from that purchase.
-
I have been on both sides of this and agree with that article.
Sure, a $10 to $20 bag of rice doesn't sound expensive. Unless you only have $20 to last the rest of the week and want something to put on top of your rice!
When I was poor and struggling I usually stole toilet paper from my university. Yep, not too proud of that.
Since I'm good at math and planning I could SEE those deals, I understood that buying in bulk was the better long-term plan, abut I could rarely afford to do so. I vividly remember buying a bulk pack of Venus razors from Costco. It seemed like an exorbitant splurge and I agonized about spending so much at once. That was probably 10 years ago and I still have unopened razor blades from that purchase.
I think the vast majority of people at all income levels could find $20/month worth of fat to cut for the short term to greatly improve their lives. I sure could, and I spend around $700/month on everything except travel.
-
The University of Michigan has published a new working paper called “Being Frugal Is Hard To Afford.” Researchers tracked the purchase of toilet paper for seven years by more than 100,000 American families from different financial backgrounds. Toilet paper was selected for the study because it is often sold in bulk, frequently on sale, non-perishable, and easy to store, and a household’s need for it cannot be met by another product.
Funny the assumptions that are always made. We buy a very limited amount of toilet paper because we have a bidet attachment on our toilet, about $40 total. Bidets are common in many modern countries, outside the US.
-
I tend to look at the causal relationship a little more differently. Do the more affluent hunt for deals and buy in bulk because of the privilege of being rich, even if they could afford to spend? Or do the financial habits of the rich embrace frugality because they tend to influence their purchases like buying in bulk and shopping around?
I've seen numerous studies of millionaires that drive small cheap cars, live in small houses, and live below their means on a continual basis. The Millionaire Next Door is a great book about analyzing the financial habits of millionaires in this regard. Not only do the wealthier tend to analyze their spending habits and impose more self-restraint on their purchases, but I'd say that their financial habits, buying in bulk for over 30-40 years, have directly contributed to their accumulation of wealth.
-
I certainly hope none of the people complaining about not being able to afford to buy in bulk have cable or expensive phone packages, as a single month of those bills would be enough to build a HUGE surplus of dry goods.
What? Who are these people complaining and so offending you? This study is based on Neilsen data, which is cold hard data and not "complaints." Do you need to invent people to feel better than?
There was a similar discussion here last year that I thought was very good: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/i-can't-afford-to-be-poor!!/
-
I certainly hope none of the people complaining about not being able to afford to buy in bulk have cable or expensive phone packages, as a single month of those bills would be enough to build a HUGE surplus of dry goods.
What? Who are these people complaining and so offending you? This study is based on Neilsen data, which is cold hard data and not "complaints." Do you need to invent people to feel better than?
There was a similar discussion here last year that I thought was very good: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/antimustachian-wall-of-shame-and-comedy/i-can't-afford-to-be-poor!!/
I've also never met a minimum wage worker who works 9-5, they usually have weird hours and multiple part time jobs making it difficult to get to that ethnic food store that sells 100lb bags of rice. The also don't have 30-40 minutes to watch the stuff cook and then store away. My dad usually gave us 1.99 to go get a can of chef bouardee or KD at the corner store, and yes he also gave us 5 bucks to buy him a pack of smokes while we were at it.
-
There's a big difference between people living at the poverty level, and people who aren't upper income.
Absolutely, people who rely on food from the food bank probably have problems coming up with $20 to buy a bulk pack of tp, which is why tp is always in such demand at the food pantry.
Beyond that level, there are plenty of people who choose to allocate their resources differently than I do. I live in a low income neighborhood and I don't drive, and I have hauled plenty of bargain megapacks of tp home from CVS.
-
Zik: I am assuming you can walk to cheaper stores or ride public transportation. Many towns in the US have terrible mass transit. There have been many studies done on "food deserts in the US." Read some of them to discover the issues. I used to be a social worker and they are real and huge for many people. Many poor people are unable to find f.t. jobs so work 2 or 3 p.t. ones which leaves a lot less time for shopping, cooking, etc especially when you don't have a car.
-
Zik: I am assuming you can walk to cheaper stores or ride public transportation. Many towns in the US have terrible mass transit. There have been many studies done on "food deserts in the US." Read some of them to discover the issues. I used to be a social worker and they are real and huge for many people. Many poor people are unable to find f.t. jobs so work 2 or 3 p.t. ones which leaves a lot less time for shopping, cooking, etc especially when you don't have a car.
I think the data points in the opposite direction, as your income increases so do hours worked. The working rich have less time for shopping, cooking, etc than the poor. You might have a point in regards to transportation, though you'd need to be really poor to not have at least a beater vehicle in the US.
(http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/78023351984F38688C8D32ECB88F71AB.gif)
-
Is it a disadvantage for the poorest among us? Sure, but saying it's a "privilege for the rich" is a bit of a stretch. A vast majority of people have the resources to buy everyday items in bulk if they're using resources effectively.
-
Honestly, I think the University of Michagan and the Atlantic are "face punch" worthy.
They may call it "rich privilege" I call it complany-pants. Sams Club might not be around but Thrift stores and Craigslist are everywhere.
Anyone can be frugal. It just takes an ounce of creative thinking.
-
I think a number of people on this thread do not really understand the challenges of the genuinely poor. In fact it's clear that they don't. And I suspect that they don't want to.
-
May, many poor people don't have beater vehicles. Try getting kids to daycare and work and home again by long bus rides. Work as a social worker for awhile and then report back. Being frugal and being genuinely poor are not the same things. Frugal people have $ to deal with lives challenges. Some poor people are worried about having enough food for their family and not because they have cable and cell phones. There actually is a government program that pays for cheap cell phones/plans so people have some phone access.
-
I've been too poor to buy in bulk, but not too poor to look for bargains. Of course, when I was too poor to buy in bulk, I was also too poor to be buying things at the thrift store and saved my money for food.
Bulk buying in particular is hard when you're poor enough that food is limited. It becomes more difficult to exclude pests like rodents and insects, for example. The best workaround I've seen is rural living - then the bulk food can be gotten for close to free, and family and neighbors will generally help those with a shortage of canning jars, either for nothing or for a reasonable number of filled jars in return. (Canning is better than freezing in this scenario because then electricity is something you can let slide if you have to.)
But poor enough to be hungry in an urban environment is a real barrier to bulk buying, or sometimes even to buying a couple of extra cans or bags of beans when they're on sale. And no, I didn't have a cell phone or a TV.
So, there are things you can do, but the barriers are real. I agree with the poster who said "rich" is an overstatement, though. You need to be about at the federal poverty level or a little below, but not a lot below, to be able to start buying food in a way that lets you employ that long-term thinking. Or be rural and you can be a lot below poverty level, but then you grow or hunt the food.
ETA I also didn't buy cigarettes or lottery tickets, since that's come up.
-
Poor people should do their shopping at the Kwik-E-Mart. All they eat is junk food and drink soda anyway ;)
-
I love the fact that the very programs aimed to help the poor, are the very programs responsible for the cycle of poverty. Irony. People never contemplate the negative consequences for these well-intentioned programs and it's a fundamental problem with most people's understanding of poverty. If you focus on 'helping' people in the short term, it's often at the expense of meaningful change in the long term.
The greatest period of poverty reduction in US history happened just prior to LBJ's 1965 War on Poverty. We've been at about that same level ever since no matter how much more we spend today than in 1965. History suggests that the only meaningful method to combat poverty has been through economic prosperity, Capitalism. This is most easily seen by looking at our GDP growth rates. We haven't grown more than 5% since Reagan, 3% since Bush, we're averaging ~2% under Obama which is close to economic stagnation territory. The poor cannot escape poverty without higher economic growth.
-
I think a number of people on this thread do not really understand the challenges of the genuinely poor. In fact it's clear that they don't. And I suspect that they don't want to.
If most were interested in understanding poverty or the working class here, there wouldn't be a shaming subforum...or a great deal of the threads in the general discussion subforum.
-
What? Who are these people complaining and so offending you? This study is based on Neilsen data, which is cold hard data and not "complaints." Do you need to invent people to feel better than?
No, you don't understand.
Of the people who claim that they cannot afford to buy frugally because they are low-income, some of those also buy cigarettes, alcohol, cable TV, or expensive cell phone plans. For instance, one study found that low-income smokers in New York spend 25% of income on cigarettes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/nyregion/poor-smokers-in-new-york-state-spend-25-of-income-on-cigarettes-study-says.html?_r=1&=_r=6
Therefore, we know that those people are liars, because they can afford to buy frugally. They simply choose not to, and instead spend their money on luxuries.
-
What? Who are these people complaining and so offending you? This study is based on Neilsen data, which is cold hard data and not "complaints." Do you need to invent people to feel better than?
No, you don't understand.
Of the people who claim that they cannot afford to buy frugally because they are low-income, some of those also buy cigarettes, alcohol, cable TV, or expensive cell phone plans. For instance, one study found that low-income smokers in New York spend 25% of income on cigarettes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/nyregion/poor-smokers-in-new-york-state-spend-25-of-income-on-cigarettes-study-says.html?_r=1&=_r=6
Therefore, we know that those people are liars, because they can afford to buy frugally. They simply choose not to, and instead spend their money on luxuries.
i don't think the rejection of frugality is necessarily a choice. you would have to be somewhat tech-savvy and aware that of the MMM movement in order to research it and embrace it. so how can the poor make a choice when they don't know they have one?
also as has been stated above, the poor (working and otherwise) are too busy trying to keep their shit together to look for other options. i'm just a noob here but i can see the value of educating folks about shopping/spending/saving strategies who may not otherwise have access to that information.
also i grew up in a single parent home, part of the masses of the faceless working poor. we received benefits like subsidized school lunches, etc. it was only when i went to college that i realized that there are strategies that can be learned for keeping more of my money or for making it do what i want it to do. after that, what i did with my money and my time was definitely my choice.
-
i don't think the rejection of frugality is necessarily a choice.
When I say frugality, I don't mean early retirement or anything like that.
I mean, buying a 30-roll pack of toilet paper that costs less per roll than a 10-roll pack.
No one needs any external knowledge to know that one is a better deal than the other. The only reason you wouldn't buy the better deal is if you couldn't afford the 30-roll pack. However, if anyone claims that they can't afford it, while also buying cigarettes or lottery tickets, then we know they are liars.
-
i don't think the rejection of frugality is necessarily a choice.
When I say frugality, I don't mean early retirement or anything like that.
I mean, buying a 30-roll pack of toilet paper that costs less per roll than a 10-roll pack.
No one needs any external knowledge to know that one is a better deal than the other. The only reason you wouldn't buy the better deal is if you couldn't afford the 30-roll pack. However, if anyone claims that they can't afford it, while also buying cigarettes or lottery tickets, then we know they are liars.
or that they are dealing with an addiction or trying to buy some hope in what may seem like a hopeless life, at least financially.
i have a personal issue. i know how to fix it yet still i don't or can't. that doesn't mean i'm a liar.
-
What? Who are these people complaining and so offending you? This study is based on Neilsen data, which is cold hard data and not "complaints." Do you need to invent people to feel better than?
No, you don't understand.
Of the people who claim that they cannot afford to buy frugally because they are low-income, some of those also buy cigarettes, alcohol, cable TV, or expensive cell phone plans. For instance, one study found that low-income smokers in New York spend 25% of income on cigarettes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/nyregion/poor-smokers-in-new-york-state-spend-25-of-income-on-cigarettes-study-says.html?_r=1&=_r=6
Therefore, we know that those people are liars, because they can afford to buy frugally. They simply choose not to, and instead spend their money on luxuries.
i don't think the rejection of frugality is necessarily a choice. you would have to be somewhat tech-savvy and aware that of the MMM movement in order to research it and embrace it. so how can the poor make a choice when they don't know they have one?
also as has been stated above, the poor (working and otherwise) are too busy trying to keep their shit together to look for other options. i'm just a noob here but i can see the value of educating folks about shopping/spending/saving strategies who may not otherwise have access to that information.
also i grew up in a single parent home, part of the masses of the faceless working poor. we received benefits like subsidized school lunches, etc. it was only when i went to college that i realized that there are strategies that can be learned for keeping more of my money or for making it do what i want it to do. after that, what i did with my money and my time was definitely my choice.
Same here, raised by a single dad. He never bothered to seek out subsidies just gave us ten or twenty bucks here and there and told us to get something to eat. Was he good with money? Hell no and still isn't. News flash everyone poor people don't have a fucking clue how to spend properly, and they don't want to listen to uppity yuppies tell them how to spend their dough.
You don't break the poverty cycle by buying fucking tp in bulk, you break it with a decent education and good jobs. Not easy for a single parent with two kids on less than 28k a year.
-
I frequently buy Seventh Generation 4 packs of TP at my fancy corner bodega because of convenience. Realizing my TP shopping habits are face punch worthy.
-
Here's an extract from a book written in the UK in 1938 (Ruined City, Neville Shute) which I think explains pretty well both the lack of privilege of being on a subsistence income and how some of you are so scathing about what the poor spend money on, for something written for entertainment nearly 80 years ago.
""It's like this. There's really nothing wrong with the rates of relief. If you are careful, and wise, and prudent, you can live on that amount of money fairly well. And you've got to be intelligent, and well educated too, and rather selfish. If you were like that, you'd get along all right - but you wouldn't have a penny to spare. [...] But if you were human - well, you'd be for it. If you got bored stiff with doing nothing so that you went and blued fourpence on going to the pictures - you just wouldn't have enough to eat that week. Or if you couldn't cook very well, and spoiled the food a bit, you'd go hungry. You'd go hungry if your wife had a birthday and you wanted to give her a little present costing a bob - you'd only get eighty per cent of your food that week. And of course, if your wife gets ill and you want to buy her little fancy bits of things ...". She shrugged her shoulders. "You've seen it up there."
He was silent for a minute. [...] At last he said "That's terrible. Because it's so difficult to change. You can't expect people in work to pay for people who are idle going to the pictures, or giving presents to their wives. We haven't reached that stage of Socialism yet. And that means there must always be starvation, in a small degree. Because people are human, and a little foolish sometimes."
She faced him bitterly. "There's only one cure for starvation - work! If only we could get some work back here! That's the only thing that allows you to be human and foolish, as you've got to be.""
So what if you don't have the education to get work, or the right papers? If you don't have the money or resources to leave your poor and workless neighbourhood? If the work you can get pays below minimum wage or less than 30 hours a week, so your employer doesn't have to be health insurance or a pension? If you don't have family to fall back on, or all your friends are as poor as you are? Are you not allowed to be human?
-
Here's an extract from a book written in the UK in 1938 (Ruined City, Neville Shute) which I think explains pretty well both the lack of privilege of being on a subsistence income and how some of you are so scathing about what the poor spend money on, for something written for entertainment nearly 80 years ago.
""It's like this. There's really nothing wrong with the rates of relief. If you are careful, and wise, and prudent, you can live on that amount of money fairly well. And you've got to be intelligent, and well educated too, and rather selfish. If you were like that, you'd get along all right - but you wouldn't have a penny to spare. [...] But if you were human - well, you'd be for it. If you got bored stiff with doing nothing so that you went and blued fourpence on going to the pictures - you just wouldn't have enough to eat that week. Or if you couldn't cook very well, and spoiled the food a bit, you'd go hungry. You'd go hungry if your wife had a birthday and you wanted to give her a little present costing a bob - you'd only get eighty per cent of your food that week. And of course, if your wife gets ill and you want to buy her little fancy bits of things ...". She shrugged her shoulders. "You've seen it up there."
He was silent for a minute. [...] At last he said "That's terrible. Because it's so difficult to change. You can't expect people in work to pay for people who are idle going to the pictures, or giving presents to their wives. We haven't reached that stage of Socialism yet. And that means there must always be starvation, in a small degree. Because people are human, and a little foolish sometimes."
She faced him bitterly. "There's only one cure for starvation - work! If only we could get some work back here! That's the only thing that allows you to be human and foolish, as you've got to be.""
So what if you don't have the education to get work, or the right papers? If you don't have the money or resources to leave your poor and workless neighbourhood? If the work you can get pays below minimum wage or less than 30 hours a week, so your employer doesn't have to be health insurance or a pension? If you don't have family to fall back on, or all your friends are as poor as you are? Are you not allowed to be human?
Every truly and seemingly-permanently poor (American) person I have ever known well has made incredibly bad decisions, over and over again. Not little "human" errors of judgment from time to time, but almost inhuman feats of fuck-upery.
Eddie, who I worked alongside with at a Greet restaurant. Eddie lived in a bad neighborhood on the south side of San Antonio and drove a beat up old car. He saved up for weeks to buy nice wheels and tires for his car, which he parked on the street in front of the house he shared with 5 other guys. The wheels were stolen and the car left on cinderblocks. Now his car had no wheels. He had no insurance, so no pay-out to replace them. He had to beg rides to work, missing some shifts here and there for weeks. Somehow he didn't get fired. He bought the same exact wheels, which were promptly stolen again, starting the cycle over. Eventually he saved up some money and bought normal crappy looking steel wheels with hubcaps for his car, and they were not stolen again. I know exactly how much money he made (because we got paid the same) and I know that this must have wrecked his whole year financially.
My cousin, who I was visiting after not seeing him for many years. He explained to me he had gotten out of jail recently and was on probation. He had a drug test the next morning, could I believe that bullshit? Later that evening he lit up a joint, took a drag, and offered it to me. I refused, asking "Don't you have a drug test tomorrow?" He looked at me like I was stupid and said "Yeah, so?" Back to jail he went, for longer this time.
Another co-worker at a corporate job who made good money. This guy was single and made $50k+ a year but was effectively poor. In the time that I knew him, he had multiple cars repoed, was evicted once, and more. Every day he bought at least 3 Monster energy drinks from the vending machine at work for $3 each. I explained to him that he could order a case of Monsters on Amazon for $1.50 each with free shipping. He could even set it up so they would send him a case a week, so he wouldn't forget. I showed him how this would save him over $1000 a year. He acknowledged that I was right, and he should do it. He never did. I offered to include Monsters in my amazon pantry refill list and bring them to him at work, and he could pay me for them at my cost. He refused.
Another extended family member who had a promising upbringing but ended up chronically poor and semi-homeless. She lived in Detroit and had very few options available to her, and was surrounded by bad influences. My parents (this was when I was a teenager) offered to pay for her to fly to Houston and live with us and help her get on her feet. She did. We used our connections to set her up with a job, and she had no bills. This lasted for 3 weeks until she met a guy at a night club and decided to move in with him. He turned out to be a rather unsavory character- I remember my parents paying her/his rent twice before they were evicted and she ended up on the streets, and eventually back in Detroit. She lived in poverty until she died young last month.
A friend from high school who I ran into last year. She never really "launched" after high school and has been living in poverty ever since. She was unemployed. I made some calls and got her a server job at a place I used to work, where you can make really good money if you are decent at waiting tables. A few weeks later I found out she was no longer working there. I called her and asked her what happened. She explained that she quit because the job was boring and she didn't like having to be polite to customers.
I could go on and on. Dozens of people living in poverty that I have observed and tried to help or advise to some extent or another. Almost all of them refused to make simple changes to help themselves, even when those changes were pointed out to them, or pushed on them. Poor Americans aren't poor because they spoil a dinner or buy flowers for their wife while on a shoestring budget. That is laughable.
-
I wouldn't say "rich", just a somewhat savvy person. It's certainly not hard to save up what's required to purchase in bulk. Maybe they meant a "rich mentality".
-
"Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege" - Pure BS
Truth below!
I think the data points in the opposite direction, as your income increases so do hours worked. The working rich have less time for shopping, cooking, etc than the poor. You might have a point in regards to transportation, though you'd need to be really poor to not have at least a beater vehicle in the US.
(http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/78023351984F38688C8D32ECB88F71AB.gif)
-
....Households generally save money in two ways – looking for good deals and buying in bulk. Interestingly, these money-saving tactics are utilized more by high-income households than low-income ones......
I quit reading after this...
I save money by not buying stupid shit. I value efficiency over cost savings most of the time, so i don't spend time hunting for deals or buying in bulk. This also suggest that high-income households are high-income because they buy in bulk/find good deals and that low-income households are low-income because they can't. I simply don't buy either of those suggestions.
Saving $1.50 on toilet paper isn't going to determine household income. It is all about poor education, no job prospects, and bad life decisions....sometimes these are by no fault of their own, but other times they are.
-
I could go on and on. Dozens of people living in poverty that I have observed and tried to help or advise to some extent or another. Almost all of them refused to make simple changes to help themselves, even when those changes were pointed out to them, or pushed on them. Poor Americans aren't poor because they spoil a dinner or buy flowers for their wife while on a shoestring budget. That is laughable.
The principle still holds true, though.
A guy wants nice wheels on his car, but he doesn't have a garage and lives in a shitty neighbourhood. He had a dream, and he was the victim not the thief. Are his circumstances supposed to prevent him from dreaming? You would say yes, I would say what else good does he have in his life?
Your pot smoking cousin has never learnt about consequences following actions, which is probably why he was in jail in the first place. Why has he never learnt that?
Your co-worker drinking Monsters got something from his vending machine transactions that he wouldn't have got through a case delivered to home. Did you ever find out what that was?
Bad influences hang around, just as good ones do. "Doing a geographical" (ie moving to a new location) is a common phrase used by those trying to break an addiction: sometimes it works, often it doesn't, and when it works there is usually something else good involved as well. Because wherever you go, there you are.
You high school friend is someone who failed to launch into adulthood so her failure to stick at an adult job is not entirely surprising. Why did she fail to launch?
So kudos to you for offering help, but if it didn't work there were reasons.
-
Passing judgment on an entire subset of the population based on limited life-experience and observation of some folks making bad decisions is the MMM'ers privilege.
But doesn't mean I have to keep reading. I'm out.
-
I grew up poor, and I agree that some here have obviously built up a story in their head about all people being one way or another. Being poor gives you all kinds of disadvantages that makes it a huge struggle to move up even if you want to.
We had a family of 6, 5 males. Single income, dad was a factory/steel worker. My parents were extremely frugal because they HAD TO BE. My mom made some of our clothes, the rest goodwill and so on. On the topic of the OP she bought lots of flour, pasta, boxes of canned foods, bulk foods and made most of our meals from scratch. Meat and fresh fruit was very sparse and limited. We had to make a pilgrimage to the bulk shopping place every couple of weeks. 1 beater car and the kids loved that trip! We got food coupons for school breakfast and lunch which was huge.
So you want to move on up in the world from the outside the formula looks simple. Do good in school, get a scholarship so you can afford it and in 25 years *poof* you're middle class or better. Never mind that you're going to be in schools of much lower quality (the good teachers and budget don't go to ghetto schools), you're under constant threat of physical violence. There is a pervasive attitude that doing good in school is for nerds and you're gonna be bullied for it. There are the typical traps of drugs, alcohol and gangs.
The mental health issue is worth noting as well. Growing up in this type of environment can give kids a type of low level PTSD, depression, anxiety, anger issues and so on. I've dealt with the laundry list myself, I know of what I speak here.
In terms of study your parents aren't doctors or lawyers. They're probably working opposite shifts to make ends meet so they'll be exhausted as well. You're not getting a lot of help here even if they want it.
Assuming you overcome this probably with the help of good parents (which are rare) or a saint of a teacher who takes an interest and you do well enough to get into a college scholarship how do you pay? Again, your parents can't afford it and while scholarships are nice true full ride ones are rare. So you need to get financial aid and probably work part time. Anyone who has worked part time and gone to school full time knows what that grind is like. And now different distractions are there with college friends who have money and don't work pulling you away from study, etc. It takes a strong will.
And yes there are other ways out like military, trades, etc. My friends growing up who 'made it' (AKA didn't end up in jail, dead, gangs and welfare) largely took this route. I took another myself after trying and failing the college route.
Every time I hear people saying poor people are just lazy and sit around smoking welfare cigarettes and that they just need to straighten up and make good decisions I roll my eyes. The REASON that happens (and it does a lot) is because the alternative is a very tough uphill battle with an uncertain payoff way down the line. This isn't to say that there isn't an element of truth to the problems being largely cultural because I firmly believe a lot of them area. But it's putting the onus on each individual to make the right choices when their entire upbringing has led them to making the wrong choices shows a critical lack of both understanding and compassion.
-
Interesting new research shows how the households that would benefit most from cost savings are the least able to access them.
Households generally save money in two ways – looking for good deals and buying in bulk. Interestingly, these money-saving tactics are utilized more by high-income households than low-income ones. This is unfortunate, since low-income households are precisely the ones who would benefit most from the financial savings; but it turns out that saving money in these ways requires resources that most low-incomes households do not have.
The University of Michigan has published a new working paper called “Being Frugal Is Hard To Afford.” Researchers tracked the purchase of toilet paper for seven years by more than 100,000 American families from different financial backgrounds. Toilet paper was selected for the study because it is often sold in bulk, frequently on sale, non-perishable, and easy to store, and a household’s need for it cannot be met by another product.
The researchers found that low-income households are less likely to purchase in bulk because they don’t have enough money to make extra purchases beyond what’s necessary in the immediate present. As a result, they have a smaller inventory stored at home, which forces them to purchase toilet paper at short notice, even when it’s not on sale.
Ah, no.
Households save money in exactly one way: by not spending.
You only end up having to buy toilet paper on short notice if you aren't paying attention. Being distracted can afflict all wealth and income levels, but the absolute need and usage rate for TP remains relatively constant.
In fact, by focusing on TP, the Michigan researchers make the mistake Abraham Wald famously pointed out in the military's plan to reinforce aircraft where they returned from battle with holes from enemy fire.
Bulk buying isn't the income generating & wealth preserving magic bullet it is made out to be. Costco is hugely profitable and uses sophisticated psychological understanding to get the middle-class to part with their cash and feel good about doing it. But households who saved a few pennies on TP & fancy cheese have plowed the difference (and then some) into a Vitamix or a Dyson.
Lower income households are actually more frugal and price conscious BECAUSE their margin for error is so much narrower than it is for middle and high income households. http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/nyt-the-rich-can-learn-from-the-poor-about-how-to-be-frugal/ (http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/mustachianism-around-the-web/nyt-the-rich-can-learn-from-the-poor-about-how-to-be-frugal/)
The problem with the Michigan study and some of the bleeding heart responses to it is that we end up with costly solutions to non-problems that leave everyone standing in line for toilet paper. Capitalism, while often unfair and by its very nature unequal, feeds more people than socialism ever could. It supplies all of them with better toilet paper, even if means the 1% can wipe their asses with warmed baby wipes.
-
Plus pre-natal and early childhood nutrition have huge effects on brain development. And early childhood really affects how a child approaches life. The marshmallow test ended up measuring not so much a child's ability to delay gratification, but how much the child believed the extra payoff would actually happen. That is bound to affect how well someone plans ahead, versus living in the present. How many stories are out there about a child who saved, and whose parents then spent that money? That is an incentive to spend while the money is there, not save for future use.
-
I could go on and on. Dozens of people living in poverty that I have observed and tried to help or advise to some extent or another. Almost all of them refused to make simple changes to help themselves, even when those changes were pointed out to them, or pushed on them. Poor Americans aren't poor because they spoil a dinner or buy flowers for their wife while on a shoestring budget. That is laughable.
The principle still holds true, though.
A guy wants nice wheels on his car, but he doesn't have a garage and lives in a shitty neighbourhood. He had a dream, and he was the victim not the thief. Are his circumstances supposed to prevent him from dreaming? You would say yes, I would say what else good does he have in his life?
He could have set that money aside for job training. He could have then gotten a better paying job, afforded better training, etc., until he could afford a better neighborhood and THEN gotten the fancy wheels.
Just because someone has a dream doesn't mean it's not a stupid dream, or a dream whose time has not come.
Your pot smoking cousin has never learnt about consequences following actions, which is probably why he was in jail in the first place. Why has he never learnt that?
I don't know. But a host of logic-less do-gooders telling him it's ok to do stupid things is unlikely to help convince him to change.
So kudos to you for offering help, but if it didn't work there were reasons.
Yep. And those reasons are almost certainly dysfunctional attitudes coupled with repeated bad choices.
-
I could go on and on. Dozens of people living in poverty that I have observed and tried to help or advise to some extent or another. Almost all of them refused to make simple changes to help themselves, even when those changes were pointed out to them, or pushed on them. Poor Americans aren't poor because they spoil a dinner or buy flowers for their wife while on a shoestring budget. That is laughable.
The principle still holds true, though.
A guy wants nice wheels on his car, but he doesn't have a garage and lives in a shitty neighbourhood. He had a dream, and he was the victim not the thief. Are his circumstances supposed to prevent him from dreaming? You would say yes, I would say what else good does he have in his life?
Your pot smoking cousin has never learnt about consequences following actions, which is probably why he was in jail in the first place. Why has he never learnt that?
Your co-worker drinking Monsters got something from his vending machine transactions that he wouldn't have got through a case delivered to home. Did you ever find out what that was?
Bad influences hang around, just as good ones do. "Doing a geographical" (ie moving to a new location) is a common phrase used by those trying to break an addiction: sometimes it works, often it doesn't, and when it works there is usually something else good involved as well. Because wherever you go, there you are.
You high school friend is someone who failed to launch into adulthood so her failure to stick at an adult job is not entirely surprising. Why did she fail to launch?
So kudos to you for offering help, but if it didn't work there were reasons.
The principle at hand does not hold true. The people I described above had character flaws that caused them to be the way they were. Simple as that. The point is, they didn't end up in their situations because they bought a candy bar when they shouldn't have, or bought their kids a GI Joe or a Happy Meal with their last dollar. Eddie could have handled a mis-step like that. There is a huge difference between a hiccup like that and spending all your savings or going into debt to buy flashy rims for your beater car.
I'm not sure what to say about your responses to the mini case studies I posted. Why did they do the stupid things they did? Because they had terrible character flaws and made terrible decisions that prevented them from bettering themselves. All of which was their own fault.
-
The mental health issue is worth noting as well. Growing up in this type of environment can give kids a type of low level PTSD, depression, anxiety, anger issues and so on. I've dealt with the laundry list myself, I know of what I speak here.
The link between poverty and intelligence (or at least gray matter) has been studied with MRI scans.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-20/brain-scans-reveal-how-poverty-hurts-children-s-brains
The more relevant question for the terminally poor is:
Even if it's their fault for making stupid decisions (aka, being human), how do we fix it? Or do we shrug and claim that there will always be poor so fuck 'em?
-
There are smart poor people and stupid poor people just like there are smart rich people and stupid rich people. Being poor means you have less of a margin of error. The smart poor people know that, but even they have to play more "not to lose" than "to win." They're less likely to be the ones freezing $100 of butter when it goes on super-sale.
But I do agree with what some others are saying here. Bulk-buying might be more difficult when poor, but that's hardly their worst problem. The "boots theory" is similar but more relevant.
The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness
Essentially, short-term planning takes priority over long-term, because there's more uncertainty all around. I know that nearly every time I've made a short-term decision instead of a long-term one it's been the wrong option. Being poor is hard, and often those in the situation aren't the best at dealing with it.
I grew up in "perfect rich white family" upper-middle-class America. My girlfriend grew up in inner-city white trash ghetto Phoenix raised by a narcissist welfare queen. It wasn't until I visited her there the first time that I first began to learn what that sort of life and environment is really like. And she didn't really understand how awful it was all around until she went back to visit for the first time after living elsewhere for a year and a half.
It can be toxic. Draining. People making bad decisions all around you, and trapping themselves into even worse situations. Even if you're smart, you can get dragged into all that. 27% interest car loan because of shitty credit, no savings, and needing a car (not to mention no education on the topic). $500/month electricity bill because your air conditioner is from the 1980s and you live in Phoenix with 100-110F days for the entire summer. Oh, and many of them spending hundreds a month on cigarettes and alcohol because that environment breeds addicts (not to mention the harder stuff). Those things alone can force someone scraping by on minimum wage to have very few options if something else goes wrong, which at its best leads to bad choices and at its worst leads to crime. Her sisters came from the same place and situation, and one has all kinds of drug problems from self-medicating mental problems, and the other has pretty debilitating social anxiety.
Yes, some people are poor because they're dumb. Others are born into it, and clawing out isn't easy even if you know what you're doing. It also causes or aggravates all kinds of mental problems, and they're the least equipped to handle that.
-
Ketchup, I think you've hit on the most important thing with the long-term vs short-term planning. The wherewithal to make decisions based on what's best over the long term is the biggest change I see in my own life as I've come out of that sort of poverty.
Interestingly, the rural option is more focused on long-term thinking, too. Has to be - you have to put by enough food to make it through the winter.
-
The mental health issue is worth noting as well. Growing up in this type of environment can give kids a type of low level PTSD, depression, anxiety, anger issues and so on. I've dealt with the laundry list myself, I know of what I speak here.
The link between poverty and intelligence (or at least gray matter) has been studied with MRI scans.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-20/brain-scans-reveal-how-poverty-hurts-children-s-brains
The more relevant question for the terminally poor is:
Even if it's their fault for making stupid decisions (aka, being human), how do we fix it? Or do we shrug and claim that there will always be poor so fuck 'em?
How do we fix what?
There will always be a bottom quintile. There is no escaping this absolute fact. A rising tide lifts all boats. But if you shoot holes in the bottom of your boat, you've fucked yourself and no program is going to be perfectly patch all of them before you drown.
Can we alleviate suffering? Yes.
Must we feed the hungry, treat the sick, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless? Absolutely. As a Christian, I'm compelled by my faith to do those things.
Should we rig the game so everyone pays the same lowest possible price for toilet paper? No. Of course not. In the socialist systems where that is the goal, the result is more suffering, not less. But even if we could escape the socialist pitfalls and underwrite the Costco memberships for poor folks, cheaper toilet paper isn't their ticket out of the ghetto. The bulk buying habit is, for most of the middle class, not a ticket to wealth, but another sick pattern of over consumption. Mustachian snowflakes are the exception (or think they are, anyway). But Costco isn't profitable because they are the cheapest place to buy everything. If they were, they would court the grocery dollars of the very poor, too. But really poor people are too smart to pay a premium for the privelege of shopping at Costco. Costco, and every membership warehouse, courts the middle class SUV & Minivan driving harried parent who'll stock up on bulk packages of everything and run a spare fridge & freezer to keep hot pockets and juice boxes in steady supply. They aren't in business to save that family money, but to get them to spend even more.
By American standards, I've been poor. My husband was very poor. We resent the assertion that our brains are damaged from having been poor in childhood. We resent a view of us that fosters dependency and tells us we are incapable.
-
Right. I was at the store yesterday and I saw somebody with 40 packages of Toothpaste because they had a BOGO special with apparently no limit. So, he effectively realized he can save 50% on something he'll always need. Now, I'm not sure the expiration date and how long 40 packages last, but ...
Either way, somebody who is living paycheck to paycheck would probably buy 2, or max 4, because they can't afford 20 boxes of toothpaste to then get 20 free
-
By American standards, I've been poor. My husband was very poor. We resent the assertion that our brains are damaged from having been poor in childhood. We resent a view of us that fosters dependency and tells us we are incapable.
Agreed. Having been there it can be over-whelming how to out and very situational. I admit there was a time when I felt, shoot, if I managed it why can't everyone else. This was brought home to me in Anacostia neighborhood of D.C. when I saw too many examples of extremely poor parenting in a drug addled environment. It was not the fault of the kid - but born into such a state it would be nothing short of a miracle if he could escape it.
-
I love the fact that the very programs aimed to help the poor, are the very programs responsible for the cycle of poverty. Irony. People never contemplate the negative consequences for these well-intentioned programs and it's a fundamental problem with most people's understanding of poverty. If you focus on 'helping' people in the short term, it's often at the expense of meaningful change in the long term.
The greatest period of poverty reduction in US history happened just prior to LBJ's 1965 War on Poverty. We've been at about that same level ever since no matter how much more we spend today than in 1965. History suggests that the only meaningful method to combat poverty has been through economic prosperity, Capitalism. This is most easily seen by looking at our GDP growth rates. We haven't grown more than 5% since Reagan, 3% since Bush, we're averaging ~2% under Obama which is close to economic stagnation territory. The poor cannot escape poverty without higher economic growth.
As I understand it, the food stamp program was originally designed to aid local farmers selling produce locally. Where I live we have a farmers market right in the center of a small city which accepts food stamps in exchange for locally grown produce sold by the actual producers. The idea went beyond near-term survival and focused on keeping a local economy functioning during a transition from agricultural economies to manufacturing based urban environments. Now that we've transitioned passed that, perhaps we should re-focus on cultivating local food sources and paying the producers a wage they can live on.
-
also i grew up in a single parent home, part of the masses of the faceless working poor. we received benefits like subsidized school lunches, etc. it was only when i went to college that i realized that there are strategies that can be learned for keeping more of my money or for making it do what i want it to do. after that, what i did with my money and my time was definitely my choice.
I didn't write this, but I could have. From about the age of 14, I was in charge of most of the family's food purchases. My budget? The food stamps we received. I had no problem buying enough food to last the month, but I didn't "get ahead" much by purchasing extras for later. Rather, I'd fill my cart with our needs and then I'd spend the rest on ice cream. I always spent exactly the amount I was given. Yes, I could've purchased extra rice, beans, or chicken -- but I chose the ice cream.
As a college student, I realized I could do better than my family of origin -- and I have.
-
Saving $1.50 on toilet paper isn't going to determine household income. It is all about poor education, no job prospects, and bad life decisions....sometimes these are by no fault of their own, but other times they are.
Of course it's about poor education. Sure, everyone can't manage college -- a whole lot of people genuinely aren't smart enough to make it through, and if everyone did have a college degree we wouldn't have enough jobs to go around.
Where we really fall short in education is in failing to funnel kids into our trades classes -- and we have excellent classes in our high schools that'll prepare kids for good, solid blue collar jobs, but instead we've decided that everyone should have a college prep high school education, even if it's watered down. Sooo many of my high school students could do well in trades classes, but they see them as "beneath them" -- they're going to be lawyers, nurses, business professionals in spite of their substandard GPAs and lack of interest in education.
-
As a college student, I realized I could do better than my family of origin -- and I have.
[/quote]
i've wondered before why the cycle was broken with my generation. my mother came from a family of nine siblings. only one has finished anything resembling a degree, a slot repair certificate, and most of them have died of lifestyle diseases. she lived with an american foster family for a few years. they're the ones who made a difference in her life and emphasized education. she always wanted to go to college but couldn't due to finances or her inability to focus/follow through (working 2 jobs and raising children at the same time will do this to you). so she passed that ambition on to her children and now the two of us are college graduates with five degrees between us.
so education is key. i do agree with Mrs Pete -- traditional college degrees are not for everyone and there are some kids (and adults) who try to go after them, not out of interest or skill but in pursuit of a certain lifestyle. that is fine, too, but not everyone is cut out to be a doctor, lawyer, dentist, etc.
and you would not believe the level of entitlement university students have.
-
Ketchup, I think you've hit on the most important thing with the long-term vs short-term planning. The wherewithal to make decisions based on what's best over the long term is the biggest change I see in my own life as I've come out of that sort of poverty.
This is by far the biggest change I've noticed in myself as I have come out of poverty. I (like everyone else on this forum) think about my spending in terms of my long terms goals and my overall values now. Growing up, we were so poor the goal was just making it to tomorrow. Surviving. It was a major shift when realized that spending could be about more than just this month. It could be about all those other months that come later.
When you live in poverty and only know other people in poverty, it's difficult to make that mental shift happen. I never saw anyone retire when I was a poor kid. The idea of saving up so much money that you could stop working altogether was entirely foreign. People who didn't work were disabled / on social security. I also didn't know that people negotiated how much they would be paid before they accepted a job. Seriously, I learned that from the internet when I was an adult. I told a relative about it and she literally didn't believe me!
Anyway, I understand the stupid decisions that people make when they are poor because I know the thinking patterns that happen when you assume that you will always be poor no matter what. When you think in terms of monthly payments instead of overall cost. When you don't know how compounding interest works. (Something else I learned from the internet as adult).
The mental shift happened for me because I was a scholarship student at private school for wealthy people in middle school and high school, which transported me to an entirely different universe. Casual conversations at my friends' dinner tables contained more financial knowledge than all financial knowledge of everyone in the neighborhood I lived in. For example, you can "invest" money and it slowly becomes more money over time! Paying cash upfront is often cheaper than financing! MIND BLOWN PEOPLE.
-
1000% this! When I was growing up it was all extremely short term. It wasn't till I started high school that I got exposed a little bit through friends to what regular middle class living was like. Till then I knew about this stuff like you know about Africa from watching a documentary. I remember being in a personal finance class and the teacher was very much trying to pound into our heads the power of compound interest, saving while young and not going into debt. I was a junior in high school and literally just had lunch money or any extra cash I got from selling some ill gotten goods. He might as well have been speaking Chinese. Such a missed opportunity.
I didn't get immersed in regular middle class life till I finished high school and started working to pay for college. I met some friends at work and we ended up hanging out a lot at their house in a regular neighborhood. We ended up moving to a ski resort town together and it took me the better part of a decade for it to fully sink in that this was what life should be like, it was ok for me to be living it oh and by the way you just turned 30 and maybe should think about a career. BTW-Unless you want to work till 80 better start saving, lol!
I don't think it's really enough to just talk at poor folks about saving, it really takes experiencing normal, some mentoring and concrete plans to get from there to here. Once it clicks you're off and running, but it takes some work to get it to click. You're overcoming a lifetime of programming.
Ketchup, I think you've hit on the most important thing with the long-term vs short-term planning. The wherewithal to make decisions based on what's best over the long term is the biggest change I see in my own life as I've come out of that sort of poverty.
This is by far the biggest change I've noticed in myself as I have come out of poverty. I (like everyone else on this forum) think about my spending in terms of my long terms goals and my overall values now. Growing up, we were so poor the goal was just making it to tomorrow. Surviving. It was a major shift when realized that spending could be about more than just this month. It could be about all those other months that come later.
When you live in poverty and only know other people in poverty, it's difficult to make that mental shift happen. I never saw anyone retire when I was a poor kid. The idea of saving up so much money that you could stop working altogether was entirely foreign. People who didn't work were disabled / on social security. I also didn't know that people negotiated how much they would be paid before they accepted a job. Seriously, I learned that from the internet when I was an adult. I told a relative about it and she literally didn't believe me!
Anyway, I understand the stupid decisions that people make when they are poor because I know the thinking patterns that happen when you assume that you will always be poor no matter what. When you think in terms of monthly payments instead of overall cost. When you don't know how compounding interest works. (Something else I learned from the internet as adult).
The mental shift happened for me because I was a scholarship student at private school for wealthy people in middle school and high school, which transported me to an entirely different universe. Casual conversations at my friends' dinner tables contained more financial knowledge than all financial knowledge of everyone in the neighborhood I lived in. For example, you can "invest" money and it slowly becomes more money over time! Paying cash upfront is often cheaper than financing! MIND BLOWN PEOPLE.
-
Keeping firmly in mind that anecdote is not the singular of data, I shop at a Costco down the street. In the Northern Virginia area outside DC where I live, there is an amalgam of upscale single family houses and lower income apartments and townhomes.
There are many folks of Hispanic heritage in the area.
I see plenty of fairly well-off folks shopping (like me) but I also see lots of groups of these less afluent folks pooling their money and buying in bulk, paying with cash.
Glad to see they have cracked the code on how to save.
-
This came across my feed this morning and fits right in with the topic. A couple of them made me cry.
http://thefinancialdiet.com/15-people-on-the-things-they-bought-while-poor-that-most-people-never-think-about/
-
Heres a tearjerker!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-tirado/why-poor-peoples-bad-decisions-make-perfect-sense_b_4326233.html
I think the primary goal was to get lots of clicks, but the article gets the job done...
-
It can be toxic. Draining. People making bad decisions all around you, and trapping themselves into even worse situations. Even if you're smart, you can get dragged into all that. 27% interest car loan because of shitty credit, no savings, and needing a car (not to mention no education on the topic). $500/month electricity bill because your air conditioner is from the 1980s and you live in Phoenix with 100-110F days for the entire summer. Oh, and many of them spending hundreds a month on cigarettes and alcohol because that environment breeds addicts (not to mention the harder stuff). Those things alone can force someone scraping by on minimum wage to have very few options if something else goes wrong, which at its best leads to bad choices and at its worst leads to crime. Her sisters came from the same place and situation, and one has all kinds of drug problems from self-medicating mental problems, and the other has pretty debilitating social anxiety.
Yes, some people are poor because they're dumb. Others are born into it, and clawing out isn't easy even if you know what you're doing. It also causes or aggravates all kinds of mental problems, and they're the least equipped to handle that.
There is a lot of truth dropped right here.
I wasn't on the streets poor- but I was so poor I was struggling to pay my 750$ rent- much less feed myself- my horse- my cat and my rent were paid for- and I ate black beans and rice. I have a good engineering education- I KNEW when I was at the store- the price per pound point of whatever I was buying was better for the larger bag. But I simply didn't have the money. Golden shackles of construction and the odd work hours made finding a more consistent part time job practically impossible.
Add on top of that- not making money and slowly growing further into debt let to random chaotic CC splurgers that led to horrible guilt and depression.
Being poor sucks. and I wasn't even really "that poor" but it 100% fucks with your head- and buying in bulk- definitely isn't an option when you can barely feed yourself. I certainly KNEW it was a better deal- but I couldn't/wouldn't take the hit to take advantage of it most of the time.
I'd be interested to know the wealth vs hrs worked chart- are those hours worked specifically at ONE job- or "all jobs" because we all know people will work multiple jobs- and I bet you they aren't all accounted for on that chart.
-
I think a number of people on this thread do not really understand the challenges of the genuinely poor. In fact it's clear that they don't. And I suspect that they don't want to.
+1
And many who don't understand that an anecdote isn't a research study with a large data set.
-
At my poorest, I had no car and no bike (it had been stolen and I couldn't afford to replace it). Public transportation was nearly non existent.
I walked 30 minutes each way to the grocery store, and whatever I bought had to fit in my backpack or be carried on either arm.
Almost every grocery store decision I made was made according to: 1) Do I know how to prepare it? 2) Can I transport it home?
Bulk toilet paper definitely failed the transport test. Cab fare was reserved for cat litter. I'd walk to the pet store and buy five giant bags of cat litter at once, then call a cab to take me home with it, then haul it up stairs to my apartment one at a time.
At home, I didn't have a freezer. The fridge in my rental was older than I was - it had an icebox instead of a real freezer. So there was no bulk storage of perishable food.
I ate Alphagetti for lunch every single day. When Alphagetti was on sale, that was a big win. I'd make a special trip to the store just for that. I knew exactly how many cans of Alphagetti I could carry if I didn't buy anything else. I had to be careful though - if I broke my backpack straps on the way home, I was screwed.
And for all that - I wasn't really even POOR. Not poverty poor. I was just single and a student. But I had no kids, no medical bills. I lived in Canada, so insurance wasn't something I worried about. But you know what? It's not easy to get 50 cans of Alphagetti home on your back. Bulk is easy when you have a car trunk to sling everything into.
-
Saving $1.50 on toilet paper isn't going to determine household income. It is all about poor education, no job prospects, and bad life decisions....sometimes these are by no fault of their own, but other times they are.
Of course it's about poor education. Sure, everyone can't manage college -- a whole lot of people genuinely aren't smart enough to make it through, and if everyone did have a college degree we wouldn't have enough jobs to go around.
Where we really fall short in education is in failing to funnel kids into our trades classes -- and we have excellent classes in our high schools that'll prepare kids for good, solid blue collar jobs, but instead we've decided that everyone should have a college prep high school education, even if it's watered down. Sooo many of my high school students could do well in trades classes, but they see them as "beneath them" -- they're going to be lawyers, nurses, business professionals in spite of their substandard GPAs and lack of interest in education.
I don't quite understand the american model used for this. I grew up in the Netherlands and once you get to high school there are multiple tracks depending on your performance that really put you on track for either university, college or trade schools. Here though it seems everyone is still left in the same class to get the exact same education and grading through high school. It seems the former is geared far more to guide people to the job that will work for them.
Also the chart provided about hours worked doesn't really show how poorer people often work multiple jobs and/or split shifts meaning much more time is spent traveling between jobs which costs much more time and also money.
-
I think a number of people on this thread do not really understand the challenges of the genuinely poor. In fact it's clear that they don't. And I suspect that they don't want to.
+1
And many who don't understand that an anecdote isn't a research study with a large data set.
Meh.
Just because I disagree doesn't mean I don't understand.
And you are right, ONE anecdote doesn't trump a research study with a large data set. But what if I have 20 anecdotes? 100? 1000?
"The data" says that 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted during college.
That is obviously and blatantly wrong. Am I doomed to just start parroting that line because I am not able to fund a research study to refute it?
-
"The data" says that 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted during college.
That is obviously and blatantly wrong. Am I doomed to just start parroting that line because I am not able to fund a research study to refute it?
Only someone who is completely without a clue could make the bolded statement. I'm willing to assume it was made by a man, too.
No-one is going to make anyone "parrot" anything. You don't even have to believe the data. But I know what I think of you, and that's enough of a statement for me.
-
Hunting for deals and buying in bulk is a rich person's privilege
Privilege: "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group of people."
This language about "privilege" is the normalization of disfunction.
I'm sorry, but not abusing booze or drugs, or not smoking is normal and available to all. Doing those things is abnormal.
Thinking past the here and now is normal and available to all, thinking only of today is abnormal.
Paying attention in school is normal and available to all. Fucking off and denigrating those that actually try in school as "nerds", "Oreo's", "Apples" or any other derogatory slur, is abnormal.
Cooking food from inexpensive and wholesome ingredients is normal and available to all (oh, and so called food deserts are a myth created out of whole cloth by people with fucked up agendas). Only eating processed crap is abnormal.
This attempt to shift the language is destructive and self defeating to those with the abnormality. Their condition is "normal" and those that aren't dis-functional are abnormal. It relieves them of any responsibility to improve their own lot in life and sows hatred at those without disfunction.
It attempts to turn admirable behavior (thrift, hard work, self betterment, not being a complete fuck up) into somehow having taken from someone else - see the definition of "privilege" - a special right..... No, buying rice and dry beans and an onion in the more economical manner instead of shoveling big macs in my face isn't some special right. Anyone can do it.
When there is a law passed and enforced at the point of a bayonet that says only certain people can buy TP in a 12 pack instead of by single rolls, or that only rich people can buy 5 pound sacks of rice while the poor are required to eat at Burger King or are only allowed to buy 8 ounce packages, THEN I'll agree there is "privilege". Until then, sorry, but the fact is, BY DEFINITION, there is no privilege of rich people buying in bulk - so STFU.
-
If you are going to turn bulk rice, beans and raw onion into a meal, the minimum you need is-
money to spare to buy in bulk, and the means to transport the bulk home
access to safe storage for your rice, beans and onion (safe from other people and from vermin)
cooking oil and spices
access to cooking facilities (a hob, a clean supply of water)
reliable fuel supply for the cooking facilities (you go hungry if the gas or electricity is off, which may be out of your control)
a cooking pan and spoon
basic knowledge of how to cook
time and energy
crockery and cutlery, a place to store them and a way to wash them
the ability and desire to live on plain rice and beans for most or all your meals, potentially for the rest of your life
All in all, cooking rice and beans takes a considerable level of resources.
-
If you are going to turn bulk rice, beans and raw onion into a meal, the minimum you need is-
money to spare to buy in bulk, and the means to transport the bulk home
access to safe storage for your rice, beans and onion (safe from other people and from vermin)
cooking oil and spices
access to cooking facilities (a hob, a clean supply of water)
reliable fuel supply for the cooking facilities (you go hungry if the gas or electricity is off, which may be out of your control)
a cooking pan and spoon
basic knowledge of how to cook
time and energy
This. So this! If you are poor, you don't have many of these things, so yes, buying in bulk is not something that poor people do. And I'm pretty sure many of them know that it would be more cost effective if they could but they CAN'T. It bewilders me that many on here don't seem to grasp that.
crockery and cutlery, a place to store them and a way to wash them
the ability and desire to live on plain rice and beans for most or all your meals, potentially for the rest of your life
All in all, cooking rice and beans takes a considerable level of resources.
-
If you are going to turn bulk rice, beans and raw onion into a meal, the minimum you need is-
money to spare to buy in bulk, and the means to transport the bulk home
access to safe storage for your rice, beans and onion (safe from other people and from vermin)
cooking oil and spices
access to cooking facilities (a hob, a clean supply of water)
reliable fuel supply for the cooking facilities (you go hungry if the gas or electricity is off, which may be out of your control)
a cooking pan and spoon
basic knowledge of how to cook
time and energy
crockery and cutlery, a place to store them and a way to wash them
the ability and desire to live on plain rice and beans for most or all your meals, potentially for the rest of your life
All in all, cooking rice and beans takes a considerable level of resources.
The things you list would certainly make sense for someone living in the slums of Mumbai.
Those are not challenges that a significant number of non-homeless people face in America or similar nations.
-
i don't think the rejection of frugality is necessarily a choice.
When I say frugality, I don't mean early retirement or anything like that.
I mean, buying a 30-roll pack of toilet paper that costs less per roll than a 10-roll pack.
No one needs any external knowledge to know that one is a better deal than the other. The only reason you wouldn't buy the better deal is if you couldn't afford the 30-roll pack. However, if anyone claims that they can't afford it, while also buying cigarettes or lottery tickets, then we know they are liars.
A lot of people are really bad at math. Or never had anyone remotely teach them basic financial wisdom (cue chorus if personal anecdotes disagreeing).
Billions get spent every year on advertising in order to get people to make non optimal financial decisions.
The concept of hunting for deals requires a lot more intellect and experience than most who do it intuitively realize. That's hard to teach, particularly if your entire life has taught you otherwise.
-
The more relevant question for the terminally poor is:
Even if it's their fault for making stupid decisions (aka, being human), how do we fix it? Or do we shrug and claim that there will always be poor so fuck 'em?
The first question should be, "should we to try to fix it?" And if we choose not to, it doesn't automatically mean "fuck 'em." This statement seems to say, "if you disagree with fixing it, then you're not compassionate about the poor" which is not true.
In reality, there are many programs already that have tried to fix it, and none have. And arguably, some could have made it worse, but it's hard to say, since many of these programs have started during a time when the world was changing rapidly due to technology.
If we (government we) prevent people from making stupid decisions, then we are taking away their freedom to do so, and probably taking away their humanity.
If we (mustachian we) want to make a difference with individual poor communities, we can help people be more logical in their purchases. There are plenty of mustachians who have come from poor communities who can say, "I escaped this lifestyle, and this is how I did it." And some will listen, and some will choose not to.
"Perfect is the enemy of good." We can never be perfect, and we can never fix it for everyone, but maybe we can fix it for some who are willing to listen.
-
As a completely broke, stoner college student working for 8 dollars an hour I figured out bulk was better. Its not a rich person's privilege. Its a willpower issue.
I even got a Costco membership once I rode my bike there and looked at the deals. No pad of paper necessary, they have the cost per unit right there at the store.
Yes, its hard. For a month work extra, don't buy anything not that is non-essential, buy big tubs of peanut butter at Costco, tuna fish, cheap bread, rich, cheese.
I lived mostly on cheese sandwiches and peanut butter sandwiches. Used George Forman grill to heat them up. Lots of Oatmeal, rice, pancakes, etc.
Poor people can benefit too. Its just harder, obviously.
-
[/quote]
The things you list would certainly make sense for someone living in the slums of Mumbai.
Those are not challenges that a significant number of non-homeless people face in America or similar nations.
[/quote]
These challenges exist more than you would believe in poor households in America. I worked with under privileged children on a volunteer basis. One girl told me that she won't eat raisins anymore. The reason is that her family's electricity had been shut off. They got food from the food bank (mac and cheese, pasta, canned veggies, etc) but had no means to cook it. So for several days straight, all she could eat was raisins. She made do at the time, but now she never wants to eat raisins again.
-
Zik: I am assuming you can walk to cheaper stores or ride public transportation. Many towns in the US have terrible mass transit. There have been many studies done on "food deserts in the US." Read some of them to discover the issues. I used to be a social worker and they are real and huge for many people. Many poor people are unable to find f.t. jobs so work 2 or 3 p.t. ones which leaves a lot less time for shopping, cooking, etc especially when you don't have a car.
I think the data points in the opposite direction, as your income increases so do hours worked. The working rich have less time for shopping, cooking, etc than the poor. You might have a point in regards to transportation, though you'd need to be really poor to not have at least a beater vehicle in the US.
(http://www.heritage.org/static/reportimages/78023351984F38688C8D32ECB88F71AB.gif)
I don't know if this was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, so apologies if it was. Even though high earning people work more hours at their job, they use a part of there money earned to buy conveniences poorer people cannot afford. They can more easily outsource home maintenance, yard maintenance, childcare, house cleaning, healthy meal making etc. In addition, they can afford to travel more efficiently, don't have to worry about the price of gas, and have more flexible working hours to get to the store.
I have been on both sides of the coin. As a person with very low income I used to struggle in my free time to get toilet paper sales. I could not afford a car and would have to do a long walk and take a long bus ride. My travel time roundtrip was 3.5 hours. I could only buy as much as I could hold on the bus. And these trips were only possible when I could fit it in my shifting schedule while working 3 jobs. As a person wi tons more money now, it is easy to bulk shop. I hope in my car, parked in my nice neighborhood, that is a 15 min drive from the bulk store and load up.
-
As a former poor person, I can attest to the fact that it's expensive to be poor. When you are poor, any small emergency quickly snowballs into a massive catastrophe that wipes out your bank accounts and destroys your credit. So people end up paying a premium for toilet paper or car insurance (especially when you are are stuck living in an area with high rates of car damage/theft) or food or clothing, etc. The key for me was being willing to temporarily live like someone who had only a few dollars a day so I could use the other extra few dollars to invest for the future -- i.e. paying off high interest credit card debt, saving up an emergency fund, saving for a security deposit for a better apartment, saving for a more reliable car or a bicycle, saving up to buy in bulk to save money in the long run, etc. When you are under constant heavy stress from being poor, thinking in longer terms is extremely difficult. People who have never lived under those circumstances have a hard time understanding.
-
When there is a law passed and enforced at the point of a bayonet that says only certain people can buy TP in a 12 pack instead of by single rolls, or that only rich people can buy 5 pound sacks of rice while the poor are required to eat at Burger King or are only allowed to buy 8 ounce packages, THEN I'll agree there is "privilege". Until then, sorry, but the fact is, BY DEFINITION, there is no privilege of rich people buying in bulk - so STFU.
If your grocery budget for the week is $40, and that's all you have, is it "better" to buy a $2 single roll or an $18 18-pack?
I disagree with the overuse of the word "privilege" but I do think you're overestimating the ability of people to "invest" in something for the future when money is extremely tight. It does take a certain (albeit low) level of affluence in order to buy more than you need right now for a lower per-unit but higher single-time price.
-
I grew up poor. Part of the problem was way too many children on too little salary. No alcohol or cigarettes. No cable. No cell phones. But no money left at the end of the week to save. I remember shopping with my mother and having to put food items back because we didn't have enough money. I don't know how they would have ever saved enough to buy in bulk. Also, there was always the fear that anything purchased in bulk would be eaten or consumed in bulk. We consumed it almost as fast as it was brought into the house. I remember my mother putting food under her bed so we wouldn't eat it while she was asleep. We were smart and got jobs working at restaurants. Free food! And often the owners sent the leftovers home to my family at the end of the night. But, we were lucky because despite being poor and having crappy schools we had parents that loved us. And most of us had drive to do better and escape. Sometimes these situations are very complicated.
-
Another have/have nots thread devolved into survival of the fittest vs its never my fault world views. Sigh.
Would be so much better if we could all just realize that on the one hand, in a society we should all move together, and that some people are always gonna need some help, and on the other hand, people can and do game the system, some make suboptimal choices, and not every failing has an excuse.
-
Another have/have nots thread devolved into survival of the fittest vs its never my fault world views. Sigh.
Would be so much better if we could all just realize that on the one hand, in a society we should all move together, and that some people are always gonna need some help, and on the other hand, people can and do game the system, some make suboptimal choices, and not every failing has an excuse.
Like most things, the truth is in the middle and you do a good job of explaining this. That is why I don't support Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders types. We should not give more to the rich and we should not make college free for liberal arts majors. We should have affordable college and healthcare and we should make sure that all who are willing to work are out of poverty. Federal grants that lower tuition for students at school who reignin costs would help, Medicare for all paid for by expanding payroll taxes and vastly expanding the eitc with a healthy tax raise (in the 5% range or so) on incomes and capital gains over a certain threshold would go a long way in rebuilding our middle class without creating perverse incentives that benefit the rich or the lazy.
-
I don't quite understand the american model used for this. I grew up in the Netherlands and once you get to high school there are multiple tracks depending on your performance that really put you on track for either university, college or trade schools. Here though it seems everyone is still left in the same class to get the exact same education and grading through high school. It seems the former is geared far more to guide people to the job that will work for them.
Also the chart provided about hours worked doesn't really show how poorer people often work multiple jobs and/or split shifts meaning much more time is spent traveling between jobs which costs much more time and also money.
The right to make one's own path in life is part of the American Dream, psyche, ethos, whatever you want to call it. Your description of the Netherlands' model has me wondering how rigid the structure is. What happens if you are a high performer and want to work the trades--say as a carpenter? What if you are mediocre and want to go to university?
-
I don't quite understand the american model used for this. I grew up in the Netherlands and once you get to high school there are multiple tracks depending on your performance that really put you on track for either university, college or trade schools. Here though it seems everyone is still left in the same class to get the exact same education and grading through high school. It seems the former is geared far more to guide people to the job that will work for them.
Also the chart provided about hours worked doesn't really show how poorer people often work multiple jobs and/or split shifts meaning much more time is spent traveling between jobs which costs much more time and also money.
The right to make one's own path in life is part of the American Dream, psyche, ethos, whatever you want to call it. Your description of the Netherlands' model has me wondering how rigid the structure is. What happens if you are a high performer and want to work the trades--say as a carpenter? What if you are mediocre and want to go to university?
If you work hard and show you are capable of achieving at the higher levels you can move up. You can always apply for a lower level. You can go for any level you've gotten the grades to achieve. If you don't get the grades though you don't get to go to a level of education above your ability and/or level of effort.
There are also tracks to get to university from lower levels, but you'll have to take advanced classes after finishing the lower level to prove you are capable of attending the higher levels. Also how is that any different than not getting in to college since you didn't get high enough grades to get in college? You still won't get in.
The main difference is that the education in the dutch situation is geared towards the actual skill level of the people attending it and is geared towards a career the person is able to complete.
-
Another have/have nots thread devolved into survival of the fittest vs its never my fault world views. Sigh.
Would be so much better if we could all just realize that on the one hand, in a society we should all move together, and that some people are always gonna need some help, and on the other hand, people can and do game the system, some make suboptimal choices, and not every failing has an excuse.
Like most things, the truth is in the middle and you do a good job of explaining this. That is why I don't support Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders types. We should not give more to the rich and we should not make college free for liberal arts majors. We should have affordable college and healthcare and we should make sure that all who are willing to work are out of poverty. Federal grants that lower tuition for students at school who reignin costs would help, Medicare for all paid for by expanding payroll taxes and vastly expanding the eitc with a healthy tax raise (in the 5% range or so) on incomes and capital gains over a certain threshold would go a long way in rebuilding our middle class without creating perverse incentives that benefit the rich or the lazy.
You recognize that "the truth is in middle" but then go an advocate for a very liberal agenda. Let' see:
* not give more to the rich
* affordable college and healthcare
* medicare for all paid for by expanding taxes
* increase taxes
The only thing that could be considered a concession to non-liberals is
* not make college free for liberal arts majors
So your narrative is basically the Sander's campaign message.
To truly make progress on these issues we are going to need new ideas. New ideas that offer something to both sides. And a willingness to compromise.
-
Another have/have nots thread devolved into survival of the fittest vs its never my fault world views. Sigh.
Would be so much better if we could all just realize that on the one hand, in a society we should all move together, and that some people are always gonna need some help, and on the other hand, people can and do game the system, some make suboptimal choices, and not every failing has an excuse.
Like most things, the truth is in the middle and you do a good job of explaining this. That is why I don't support Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders types. We should not give more to the rich and we should not make college free for liberal arts majors. We should have affordable college and healthcare and we should make sure that all who are willing to work are out of poverty. Federal grants that lower tuition for students at school who reignin costs would help, Medicare for all paid for by expanding payroll taxes and vastly expanding the eitc with a healthy tax raise (in the 5% range or so) on incomes and capital gains over a certain threshold would go a long way in rebuilding our middle class without creating perverse incentives that benefit the rich or the lazy.
You recognize that "the truth is in middle" but then go an advocate for a very liberal agenda. Let' see:
* not give more to the rich
* affordable college and healthcare
* medicare for all paid for by expanding taxes
* increase taxes
The only thing that could be considered a concession to non-liberals is
* not make college free for liberal arts majors
So your narrative is basically the Sander's campaign message.
To truly make progress on these issues we are going to need new ideas. New ideas that offer something to both sides. And a willingness to compromise.
Actually I think it is closer to Clinton. Sander's would flip over the college issue and he is not known to compromise.
-
I don't quite understand the american model used for this. I grew up in the Netherlands and once you get to high school there are multiple tracks depending on your performance that really put you on track for either university, college or trade schools. Here though it seems everyone is still left in the same class to get the exact same education and grading through high school. It seems the former is geared far more to guide people to the job that will work for them.
Also the chart provided about hours worked doesn't really show how poorer people often work multiple jobs and/or split shifts meaning much more time is spent traveling between jobs which costs much more time and also money.
The right to make one's own path in life is part of the American Dream, psyche, ethos, whatever you want to call it. Your description of the Netherlands' model has me wondering how rigid the structure is. What happens if you are a high performer and want to work the trades--say as a carpenter? What if you are mediocre and want to go to university?
If you work hard and show you are capable of achieving at the higher levels you can move up. You can always apply for a lower level. You can go for any level you've gotten the grades to achieve. If you don't get the grades though you don't get to go to a level of education above your ability and/or level of effort.
There are also tracks to get to university from lower levels, but you'll have to take advanced classes after finishing the lower level to prove you are capable of attending the higher levels. Also how is that any different than not getting in to college since you didn't get high enough grades to get in college? You still won't get in.
The main difference is that the education in the dutch situation is geared towards the actual skill level of the people attending it and is geared towards a career the person is able to complete.
I know plenty of people, mostly guys, who screwed around in high school and maybe even afterwards, who eventually got their head right, went to college later, and were quite successful. It seems as though the Dutch system would send these people down a track they can't recover from, based solely on their performance at a very early stage in life.
-
Another have/have nots thread devolved into survival of the fittest vs its never my fault world views. Sigh.
Would be so much better if we could all just realize that on the one hand, in a society we should all move together, and that some people are always gonna need some help, and on the other hand, people can and do game the system, some make suboptimal choices, and not every failing has an excuse.
Like most things, the truth is in the middle and you do a good job of explaining this. That is why I don't support Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders types. We should not give more to the rich and we should not make college free for liberal arts majors. We should have affordable college and healthcare and we should make sure that all who are willing to work are out of poverty. Federal grants that lower tuition for students at school who reignin costs would help, Medicare for all paid for by expanding payroll taxes and vastly expanding the eitc with a healthy tax raise (in the 5% range or so) on incomes and capital gains over a certain threshold would go a long way in rebuilding our middle class without creating perverse incentives that benefit the rich or the lazy.
You recognize that "the truth is in middle" but then go an advocate for a very liberal agenda. Let' see:
* not give more to the rich
* affordable college and healthcare
* medicare for all paid for by expanding taxes
* increase taxes
The only thing that could be considered a concession to non-liberals is
* not make college free for liberal arts majors
So your narrative is basically the Sander's campaign message.
To truly make progress on these issues we are going to need new ideas. New ideas that offer something to both sides. And a willingness to compromise.
Actually I think it is closer to Clinton. Sander's would flip over the college issue and he is not known to compromise.
The right's ideas are so tainted that they think that what benefits 99% of the population is extremely liberal. I don't think free college is a good idea because you have no skin in the game. I don't think giving more to those who won't work is a good idea because it encourages laziness. It's only the ultra right that would call someone extremely liberal who thinks everyone who's willing to participate in our society should be out of poverty,have health insurance and should be able to attend college without mortgaging their future. Those are massively centrist opinions but the right is so tainted that they think it's far left. God save us all.
-
Yep.
I think about this sometimes when I shop, and when I compare my habits to those of my poorest friend. Sometimes the stuff he does just drives me batty, but when I think about the actual constraints he tends to operate under, it seems less insane. Slightly, at least.
-
Another have/have nots thread devolved into survival of the fittest vs its never my fault world views. Sigh.
Would be so much better if we could all just realize that on the one hand, in a society we should all move together, and that some people are always gonna need some help, and on the other hand, people can and do game the system, some make suboptimal choices, and not every failing has an excuse.
Like most things, the truth is in the middle and you do a good job of explaining this. That is why I don't support Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders types. We should not give more to the rich and we should not make college free for liberal arts majors. We should have affordable college and healthcare and we should make sure that all who are willing to work are out of poverty. Federal grants that lower tuition for students at school who reignin costs would help, Medicare for all paid for by expanding payroll taxes and vastly expanding the eitc with a healthy tax raise (in the 5% range or so) on incomes and capital gains over a certain threshold would go a long way in rebuilding our middle class without creating perverse incentives that benefit the rich or the lazy.
You recognize that "the truth is in middle" but then go an advocate for a very liberal agenda. Let' see:
* not give more to the rich
* affordable college and healthcare
* medicare for all paid for by expanding taxes
* increase taxes
The only thing that could be considered a concession to non-liberals is
* not make college free for liberal arts majors
So your narrative is basically the Sander's campaign message.
To truly make progress on these issues we are going to need new ideas. New ideas that offer something to both sides. And a willingness to compromise.
Actually I think it is closer to Clinton. Sander's would flip over the college issue and he is not known to compromise.
The right's ideas are so tainted that they think that what benefits 99% of the population is extremely liberal. I don't think free college is a good idea because you have no skin in the game. I don't think giving more to those who won't work is a good idea because it encourages laziness.
I can't tell if you mean that or it's sarcasm.
It's only the ultra right that would call someone extremely liberal who thinks everyone who's willing to participate in our society should be out of poverty,have health insurance and should be able to attend college without mortgaging their future. Those are massively centrist opinions but the right is so tainted that they think it's far left. God save us all.
I think you are over generalizing. You perceive that because they don't agree with the *solutions* of the left that they are against the *goals*. In reality, both right and left share many (not all) goals. Both want to increase prosperity, increase access to health care, increase access to college. Just because they don't think raising taxes and giving people freebies is the solution doesn't mean they don't agree on the goals.
-
Another have/have nots thread devolved into survival of the fittest vs its never my fault world views. Sigh.
Would be so much better if we could all just realize that on the one hand, in a society we should all move together, and that some people are always gonna need some help, and on the other hand, people can and do game the system, some make suboptimal choices, and not every failing has an excuse.
Like most things, the truth is in the middle and you do a good job of explaining this. That is why I don't support Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders types. We should not give more to the rich and we should not make college free for liberal arts majors. We should have affordable college and healthcare and we should make sure that all who are willing to work are out of poverty. Federal grants that lower tuition for students at school who reignin costs would help, Medicare for all paid for by expanding payroll taxes and vastly expanding the eitc with a healthy tax raise (in the 5% range or so) on incomes and capital gains over a certain threshold would go a long way in rebuilding our middle class without creating perverse incentives that benefit the rich or the lazy.
You recognize that "the truth is in middle" but then go an advocate for a very liberal agenda. Let' see:
* not give more to the rich
* affordable college and healthcare
* medicare for all paid for by expanding taxes
* increase taxes
The only thing that could be considered a concession to non-liberals is
* not make college free for liberal arts majors
So your narrative is basically the Sander's campaign message.
To truly make progress on these issues we are going to need new ideas. New ideas that offer something to both sides. And a willingness to compromise.
Actually I think it is closer to Clinton. Sander's would flip over the college issue and he is not known to compromise.
The right's ideas are so tainted that they think that what benefits 99% of the population is extremely liberal. I don't think free college is a good idea because you have no skin in the game. I don't think giving more to those who won't work is a good idea because it encourages laziness.
I can't tell if you mean that or it's sarcasm.
It's only the ultra right that would call someone extremely liberal who thinks everyone who's willing to participate in our society should be out of poverty,have health insurance and should be able to attend college without mortgaging their future. Those are massively centrist opinions but the right is so tainted that they think it's far left. God save us all.
I think you are over generalizing. You perceive that because they don't agree with the *solutions* of the left that they are against the *goals*. In reality, both right and left share many (not all) goals. Both want to increase prosperity, increase access to health care, increase access to college. Just because they don't think raising taxes and giving people freebies is the solution doesn't mean they don't agree on the goals.
The ACA was the GOP solution compared to single payer which is the liberal solution. Once Obama went with it, it now is evil. Please explain that.
-
Another have/have nots thread devolved into survival of the fittest vs its never my fault world views. Sigh.
Would be so much better if we could all just realize that on the one hand, in a society we should all move together, and that some people are always gonna need some help, and on the other hand, people can and do game the system, some make suboptimal choices, and not every failing has an excuse.
Like most things, the truth is in the middle and you do a good job of explaining this. That is why I don't support Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders types. We should not give more to the rich and we should not make college free for liberal arts majors. We should have affordable college and healthcare and we should make sure that all who are willing to work are out of poverty. Federal grants that lower tuition for students at school who reignin costs would help, Medicare for all paid for by expanding payroll taxes and vastly expanding the eitc with a healthy tax raise (in the 5% range or so) on incomes and capital gains over a certain threshold would go a long way in rebuilding our middle class without creating perverse incentives that benefit the rich or the lazy.
You recognize that "the truth is in middle" but then go an advocate for a very liberal agenda. Let' see:
* not give more to the rich
* affordable college and healthcare
* medicare for all paid for by expanding taxes
* increase taxes
The only thing that could be considered a concession to non-liberals is
* not make college free for liberal arts majors
So your narrative is basically the Sander's campaign message.
To truly make progress on these issues we are going to need new ideas. New ideas that offer something to both sides. And a willingness to compromise.
Actually I think it is closer to Clinton. Sander's would flip over the college issue and he is not known to compromise.
The right's ideas are so tainted that they think that what benefits 99% of the population is extremely liberal. I don't think free college is a good idea because you have no skin in the game. I don't think giving more to those who won't work is a good idea because it encourages laziness.
I can't tell if you mean that or it's sarcasm.
It's only the ultra right that would call someone extremely liberal who thinks everyone who's willing to participate in our society should be out of poverty,have health insurance and should be able to attend college without mortgaging their future. Those are massively centrist opinions but the right is so tainted that they think it's far left. God save us all.
I think you are over generalizing. You perceive that because they don't agree with the *solutions* of the left that they are against the *goals*. In reality, both right and left share many (not all) goals. Both want to increase prosperity, increase access to health care, increase access to college. Just because they don't think raising taxes and giving people freebies is the solution doesn't mean they don't agree on the goals.
The ACA was the GOP solution compared to single payer which is the liberal solution. Once Obama went with it, it now is evil. Please explain that.
You are confusing politics with what is conservative vs liberal. As a conservative, I was always against ACA. Also, I'm not sure the GOP ever endorsed it, maybe a few members did, but that doesn't make it a "GOP solution."
I do believe we have many similar goals.
-
You recognize that "the truth is in middle" but then go an advocate for a very liberal agenda. Let' see:
* not give more to the rich
* affordable college and healthcare
* medicare for all paid for by expanding taxes
* increase taxes
The only thing that could be considered a concession to non-liberals is
* not make college free for liberal arts majors
So your narrative is basically the Sander's campaign message.
To truly make progress on these issues we are going to need new ideas. New ideas that offer something to both sides. And a willingness to compromise.
Actually I think it is closer to Clinton. Sanders would flip over the college issue and he is not known to compromise.
It is closer to Clinton. The right has gone so far right that it's pulling the left along with it. Now, what used to be the basic Democrat platform is seen as "way left crazy town" despite the fact that things like universal healthcare work in most of the developed world.
I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, and find myself on either side, depending upon the issue.
You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but the author of this article makes some good points worth thinking about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html
-
You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but the author of this article makes some good points worth thinking about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html
She's terrible on 2A, which is a big Republican/conservative issue, and she's also just a miserable, unlikeable, dishonest person.
-
You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but the author of this article makes some good points worth thinking about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html
She's terrible on 2A, which is a big Republican/conservative issue, and she's also just a miserable, unlikeable, dishonest person.
Every presidential election, there's always an article that says, "The Democrat candidate is really more Republican than the Republican candidate because...." It's always total BS. In reality, it's geared toward those in the middle who haven't decided.
Beliefs evolve over time, it is not surprising that the Republican party doesn't believe exactly what it believed 40 years ago, lots have changed. And no, Hillary would not have been a candidate for the Republican party 40 years ago. Her stance on the LGBT community would have prevented either party from voting for her. But luckily, both parties have evolved over that time.
-
You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but the author of this article makes some good points worth thinking about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html
She's terrible on 2A, which is a big Republican/conservative issue, and she's also just a miserable, unlikeable, dishonest person.
Every presidential election, there's always an article that says, "The Democrat candidate is really more Republican than the Republican candidate because...." It's always total BS. In reality, it's geared toward those in the middle who haven't decided.
Beliefs evolve over time, it is not surprising that the Republican party doesn't believe exactly what it believed 40 years ago, lots have changed. And no, Hillary would not have been a candidate for the Republican party 40 years ago. Her stance on the LGBT community would have prevented either party from voting for her. But luckily, both parties have evolved over that time.
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid. As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government". That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind.
OTOH, the democrats were kinda-sorta against gay marriage, and now falling all over themselves to say, no, we've been for it all along.
Hillary: "I've always been for gay marriage"
TV host: "roll the clip"
Hillary from 10 years ago: "Marriage is between a man and a woman and that's sacred"
TV host: "really?"
Hillary from now: "that's just a mischaracterization and this is a right wing smear job and you can't understand that I've always been for it and also you hate me because I'm a woman!"
Sanders, to his credit, seems to have been consistent on this issue all along. Unfortunately for him, I vote on economic, foreign policy, and 2A issues, not gay marriage, so he won't be getting mine ;)
-
You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but the author of this article makes some good points worth thinking about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html
She's terrible on 2A, which is a big Republican/conservative issue, and she's also just a miserable, unlikeable, dishonest person.
Every presidential election, there's always an article that says, "The Democrat candidate is really more Republican than the Republican candidate because...." It's always total BS. In reality, it's geared toward those in the middle who haven't decided.
Beliefs evolve over time, it is not surprising that the Republican party doesn't believe exactly what it believed 40 years ago, lots have changed. And no, Hillary would not have been a candidate for the Republican party 40 years ago. Her stance on the LGBT community would have prevented either party from voting for her. But luckily, both parties have evolved over that time.
Topic drift somewhat, but regarding this miniature debate over Hillary being a moderate Republican, or however one chooses to phrase it:
Her stance on LGBT was pretty compatible with at least some Republican voters' views in the past, and arguably remains so today, as both have shifted left on that issue. Not coincidentally, I have noticed that many Republican friends are grudgingly planning to vote for her.
-
You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but the author of this article makes some good points worth thinking about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html
She's terrible on 2A, which is a big Republican/conservative issue, and she's also just a miserable, unlikeable, dishonest person.
Every presidential election, there's always an article that says, "The Democrat candidate is really more Republican than the Republican candidate because...." It's always total BS. In reality, it's geared toward those in the middle who haven't decided.
Beliefs evolve over time, it is not surprising that the Republican party doesn't believe exactly what it believed 40 years ago, lots have changed. And no, Hillary would not have been a candidate for the Republican party 40 years ago. Her stance on the LGBT community would have prevented either party from voting for her. But luckily, both parties have evolved over that time.
Topic drift somewhat, but regarding this miniature debate over Hillary being a moderate Republican, or however one chooses to phrase it:
Her stance on LGBT was pretty compatible with at least some Republican voters' views in the past, and arguably remains so today, as both have shifted left on that issue. Not coincidentally, I have noticed that many Republican friends are grudgingly planning to vote for her.
I honestly don't have a problem with her stance. I have a huge problem with her blatant dishonesty, her pandering pretending that she was always for it when she demonstrably wasn't, and her lashing out at people who use videos of her exact words to prove her wrong and she pretends as though they're smearing her or it's a vast right wing conspiracy or whatever. She's lying, pure and simple, AND she lashes out at those who show it rather than accept it. She's complete scum.
-
You don't have to agree with the conclusion, but the author of this article makes some good points worth thinking about:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html
She's terrible on 2A, which is a big Republican/conservative issue, and she's also just a miserable, unlikeable, dishonest person.
Every presidential election, there's always an article that says, "The Democrat candidate is really more Republican than the Republican candidate because...." It's always total BS. In reality, it's geared toward those in the middle who haven't decided.
Beliefs evolve over time, it is not surprising that the Republican party doesn't believe exactly what it believed 40 years ago, lots have changed. And no, Hillary would not have been a candidate for the Republican party 40 years ago. Her stance on the LGBT community would have prevented either party from voting for her. But luckily, both parties have evolved over that time.
Topic drift somewhat, but regarding this miniature debate over Hillary being a moderate Republican, or however one chooses to phrase it:
Her stance on LGBT was pretty compatible with at least some Republican voters' views in the past, and arguably remains so today, as both have shifted left on that issue. Not coincidentally, I have noticed that many Republican friends are grudgingly planning to vote for her.
I honestly don't have a problem with her stance. I have a huge problem with her blatant dishonesty, her pandering pretending that she was always for it when she demonstrably wasn't, and her lashing out at people who use videos of her exact words to prove her wrong and she pretends as though they're smearing her or it's a vast right wing conspiracy or whatever. She's lying, pure and simple, AND she lashes out at those who show it rather than accept it. She's complete scum.
As a conservative, I am having troubles choosing between the two. Honestly, I'll probably write in a name, so I'm not surprised some Republicans are going to vote for her.
Whether she's lying now or then is the question. She could have been lying then for political reasons.
How did we get here from buying in bulk?
-
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid. As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government". That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind.
I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.
Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.
-
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid. As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government". That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind.
I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.
Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.
Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage. Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.' OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.
Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
-
Whether she's lying now or then is the question. She could have been lying then for political reasons.
Yeah, but hard to claim you were "always for" gay marriage when there are videos of you giving speeches claiming to be against it. That ain't exactly support in my world, even if you do claim you just do it because politics. Frankly, makes it worse in my opinion. It makes you unprincipled, and it clearly makes you a liar.
-
Can't wait for the election to be done with....
-
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid. As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government". That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind.
I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.
Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.
Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage. Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.' OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.
Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Many gay rights groups said no separate but equal. So either EVERYONE gets civil unions or marriage. Deciding you get more rights (which marriage does give you a ton of rights) because of biology is wrong. Saying that is not spite.
-
Whether she's lying now or then is the question. She could have been lying then for political reasons.
Yeah, but hard to claim you were "always for" gay marriage when there are videos of you giving speeches claiming to be against it. That ain't exactly support in my world, even if you do claim you just do it because politics. Frankly, makes it worse in my opinion. It makes you unprincipled, and it clearly makes you a liar.
Did Hillary actually say she was always in favor of gay marriage? I could believe that in truth, she always was in favor, but gave speaches against it for whatever political reason.
At least our President "evolved""even though I sThink he lies, he was always in favor the f,gay marriage he just didnt take it until a political climate supported it.
-
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid. As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government". That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind.
I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.
Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.
Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage. Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.' OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.
Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Full equality and forcing "the other side", or anyone in general, to do what you want, are distinct things. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you saying that full equality is achievable via civil unions or some other "separate but equal" program?
Is it ever possible to provide full equality through a separate legal avenue with a different name? Doesn't that, at a bare minimum, allow the historically accepted group to maintain an air of superiority?
**EDIT** I meant to also say, I meant these as exploratory questions to understand your position better, but it's all rhetorical, or moot if you prefer, since SCOTUS held SBE invalid several decades ago and seems unlikely to reverse course.
-
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid. As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government". That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind.
I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.
Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.
Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage. Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.' OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.
Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Full equality and forcing "the other side", or anyone in general, to do what you want, are distinct things. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you saying that full equality is achievable via civil unions or some other "separate but equal" program?
Is it ever possible to provide full equality through a separate legal avenue with a different name? Doesn't that, at a bare minimum, allow the historically accepted group to maintain an air of superiority?
**EDIT** I meant to also say, I meant these as exploratory questions to understand your position better, but it's all rhetorical, or moot if you prefer, since SCOTUS held SBE invalid several decades ago and seems unlikely to reverse course.
If the government got out of the marriage business, and allowed couples to call themselves whatever they wanted, that would be equal, I think.
But then lots of things would have to change to allow that to work. Tax code, child support, inheritances, medical power of attorney issues, etc.
I think this way would be a bigger mess.
-
If the government got out of the marriage business, and allowed couples to call themselves whatever they wanted, that would be equal, I think.
But then lots of things would have to change to allow that to work. Tax code, child support, inheritances, medical power of attorney issues, etc.
I think this way would be a bigger mess.
Allow couples to incorporate.
Even with equal gay-marriage there are other unfairnesses.
What about a pair of old "spinster" sisters living together. Should they get tax treated differently than an old married couple?
-
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid. As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government". That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind.
I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.
Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.
Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage. Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.' OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.
Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Many gay rights groups said no separate but equal. So either EVERYONE gets civil unions or marriage. Deciding you get more rights (which marriage does give you a ton of rights) because of biology is wrong. Saying that is not spite.
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
-
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
Then why is there anyone at all who cares so much about the label itself that they'd fight to have civil unions instead of marriage for (gay/other/etc) people who want those right?
-
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid. As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government". That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind.
I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.
Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.
Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage. Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.' OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.
Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Full equality and forcing "the other side", or anyone in general, to do what you want, are distinct things. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you saying that full equality is achievable via civil unions or some other "separate but equal" program?
Is it ever possible to provide full equality through a separate legal avenue with a different name? Doesn't that, at a bare minimum, allow the historically accepted group to maintain an air of superiority?
**EDIT** I meant to also say, I meant these as exploratory questions to understand your position better, but it's all rhetorical, or moot if you prefer, since SCOTUS held SBE invalid several decades ago and seems unlikely to reverse course.
Rejecting SBE when it's things like schools where you're literally keeping someone SEPARATE from someone else, and it's demonstrably not equal, I completely get and agree with.
Rejecting SBE because it's literally just a different word that refers to the same set of rights is not, in my opinion, a valid concept. It's just semantics. It's not ACTUALLY separate. I also think saying the gay marriage fight is the same as the fight to integrate public schools is petty and worlds apart. I don't think the fight to use the word "marriage" instead of the phrase "civil union" is even the same fucking sport as fighting for the right for an adequate education.
But, as I've said, I really have no interest in telling anyone what word they and the government can and can't use to describe their legal joining, nor do I think there is any justification for a law to prevent it, so whatever.
-
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
Then why is there anyone at all who cares so much about the label itself that they'd fight to have civil unions instead of marriage for (gay/other/etc) people who want those right?
I would say you can argue that both directions. Truly, I don't know. If you mix orange juice and vodka, you get a screw driver. If you mix lemonade and vodka you get something else, which happens to be delicious. I don't get why on one hand, someone would insist on calling it a screwdriver, or on the other hand, someone would be happy to give it to you but insist you don't call it a screwdriver and get mad if you did. Like I said, seems petty on both sides.
-
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
Social security benefits?
-
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
Then why is there anyone at all who cares so much about the label itself that they'd fight to have civil unions instead of marriage for (gay/other/etc) people who want those right?
I would say you can argue that both directions. Truly, I don't know. If you mix orange juice and vodka, you get a screw driver. If you mix lemonade and vodka you get something else, which happens to be delicious. I don't get why on one hand, someone would insist on calling it a screwdriver, or on the other hand, someone would be happy to give it to you but insist you don't call it a screwdriver and get mad if you did. Like I said, seems petty on both sides.
As far as I understand it, the religious folks see a distinction between marriage and civil unions because marriage = matrimony, which is a religious event. The thought is that the government shouldn't have any say in it whatsoever, and until relatively recently governemnt definitions have alligned with religious practices, so no one raised a stink. The word is important because it refers to a specific religious rite, and gay marriage is seen as an oxymoron.
The pro-gay marriage folks want total equality, which for many means that the word marriage is important because it carries with it generations of societal values and expectations with it. Calling it a civil union wouldn't be equal, because saying "I'm married" carries a different societal weight than saying "I'm in a civil union".
I'm not a theologist, nor can I speak for the swaths of people involved in the issue, but that is how I see the two sides of it.
-
Another have/have nots thread devolved into survival of the fittest vs its never my fault world views. Sigh.
Would be so much better if we could all just realize that on the one hand, in a society we should all move together, and that some people are always gonna need some help, and on the other hand, people can and do game the system, some make suboptimal choices, and not every failing has an excuse.
Like most things, the truth is in the middle and you do a good job of explaining this. That is why I don't support Ted Cruz or Bernie Sanders types. We should not give more to the rich and we should not make college free for liberal arts majors. We should have affordable college and healthcare and we should make sure that all who are willing to work are out of poverty. Federal grants that lower tuition for students at school who reignin costs would help, Medicare for all paid for by expanding payroll taxes and vastly expanding the eitc with a healthy tax raise (in the 5% range or so) on incomes and capital gains over a certain threshold would go a long way in rebuilding our middle class without creating perverse incentives that benefit the rich or the lazy.
You recognize that "the truth is in middle" but then go an advocate for a very liberal agenda. Let' see:
* not give more to the rich
* affordable college and healthcare
* medicare for all paid for by expanding taxes
* increase taxes
The only thing that could be considered a concession to non-liberals is
* not make college free for liberal arts majors
So your narrative is basically the Sander's campaign message.
To truly make progress on these issues we are going to need new ideas. New ideas that offer something to both sides. And a willingness to compromise.
Actually I think it is closer to Clinton. Sander's would flip over the college issue and he is not known to compromise.
The right's ideas are so tainted that they think that what benefits 99% of the population is extremely liberal. I don't think free college is a good idea because you have no skin in the game. I don't think giving more to those who won't work is a good idea because it encourages laziness.
I can't tell if you mean that or it's sarcasm.
It's only the ultra right that would call someone extremely liberal who thinks everyone who's willing to participate in our society should be out of poverty,have health insurance and should be able to attend college without mortgaging their future. Those are massively centrist opinions but the right is so tainted that they think it's far left. God save us all.
I think you are over generalizing. You perceive that because they don't agree with the *solutions* of the left that they are against the *goals*. In reality, both right and left share many (not all) goals. Both want to increase prosperity, increase access to health care, increase access to college. Just because they don't think raising taxes and giving people freebies is the solution doesn't mean they don't agree on the goals.
Show me the conservative ideas to achieve those goals that possess any evidence their policies could actually achieve them. Trickle down economics was blatantly disproven under W. The 2009/2010 job creators argument failed when companies started earning record profits and wages didn't go up. Face it. A business' goal is profit to the highest degree possible. Part of doing this is paying as little as possible. Only regulation destroyed child labor abuse and starvation wages. Conservatism is a sham. Progressivism goes to far. At least the progressives care about the powerless.
-
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
Then why is there anyone at all who cares so much about the label itself that they'd fight to have civil unions instead of marriage for (gay/other/etc) people who want those right?
I would say you can argue that both directions. Truly, I don't know. If you mix orange juice and vodka, you get a screw driver. If you mix lemonade and vodka you get something else, which happens to be delicious. I don't get why on one hand, someone would insist on calling it a screwdriver, or on the other hand, someone would be happy to give it to you but insist you don't call it a screwdriver and get mad if you did. Like I said, seems petty on both sides.
As far as I understand it, the religious folks see a distinction between marriage and civil unions because marriage = matrimony, which is a religious event. The thought is that the government shouldn't have any say in it whatsoever, and until relatively recently governemnt definitions have alligned with religious practices, so no one raised a stink. The word is important because it refers to a specific religious rite, and gay marriage is seen as an oxymoron.
The pro-gay marriage folks want total equality, which for many means that the word marriage is important because it carries with it generations of societal values and expectations with it. Calling it a civil union wouldn't be equal, because saying "I'm married" carries a different societal weight than saying "I'm in a civil union".
I'm not a theologist, nor can I speak for the swaths of people involved in the issue, but that is how I see the two sides of it.
I understand (sorta) the arguments on both sides. I just think that if we're going to all agree that gay couples who have formed a legal partnership and straight couples who have formed a legal partnership all deserve exactly the same rights, either side freaking out just because they dislike what the other side wants to call it is dumb.
-
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid. As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government". That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind.
I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.
Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.
Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage. Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.' OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.
Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Many gay rights groups said no separate but equal. So either EVERYONE gets civil unions or marriage. Deciding you get more rights (which marriage does give you a ton of rights) because of biology is wrong. Saying that is not spite.
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
In the states that enacted it, it did.
-
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid. As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government". That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind.
I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.
Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.
Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage. Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.' OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.
Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Many gay rights groups said no separate but equal. So either EVERYONE gets civil unions or marriage. Deciding you get more rights (which marriage does give you a ton of rights) because of biology is wrong. Saying that is not spite.
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
In the states that enacted it, it did.
Okay, if that's the case I understand the issue. I was under the impression that civil unions = marriage in every single aspect except name.
-
The whole gay marriage thing is stupid. As a republican, I can't, for the life of me, understand how dictating who can marry whom is a plank in the party that purports to be for "small government". That's a completely arbitrary restriction just to have a restriction, and those are the worst kind.
I'm against gay marriage, although I'm against allowing the government to be involved in marriage, in anyone's intimate relationship, altogether. I think they went the wrong way by expanding access to those 'rights' and still being discriminatory to others, or not forcing society to reevaluate why we grant these benefits to married couples in the first place.
Gay marriage wasn't about rights, it was all about the bennies.
Disagree, most people on both sides of the aisle just want the word Marriage. Most anti-gay-marriage conservatives don't object to civil unions, they don't care about gays having the same rights, they just don't want them to get 'married.' OTOH, most gay marriage advocates say civil unions aren't enough, they want equality and that means 'marriage', not civil union.
Frankly, it comes across as both just want to force the other to do what they want for no rational reason, just out of spite.
Many gay rights groups said no separate but equal. So either EVERYONE gets civil unions or marriage. Deciding you get more rights (which marriage does give you a ton of rights) because of biology is wrong. Saying that is not spite.
I don't believe "marriage" gives you more rights than "civil union."
In the states that enacted it, it did.
Okay, if that's the case I understand the issue. I was under the impression that civil unions = marriage in every single aspect except name.
The way I heard it explained which makes sense to me is this: "marriage" as a word, a concept, and a legal status is deeply intrenched in laws at all levels of government. We cannot simply pass a law saying same sex couples can be joined in civil unions with all of the same rights and responsibilites as with marriage because the phrase "civil union" does not exist in these thousands of laws.
To me, its a practical argument. I dont have to listen to hysterical crying about civil rights or the oppostie hysterica about sanctity to f marriage in order t be convnced that gay couples do need to be "married" in order to be covered by all laws.
I do think its interesting that other countries hold out civil unions as separate from marriage. I dnt know what is accomlished fr M that, unless "marriage" is entirely a religious status.
If it were that simple, that civio union ns meant exactly the same things ng as "marriage"
I think it is interesting to see what happens with oppostie gender coules
-
Since the thread has gone there, the next logical progression is for the revocation of laws that confer benefits to married couples at all.
I agree that it was unfair for homosexual couples to be excluded from benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. But an increasing proportion of the population is not married. Whether they are never married and not planning to be, are widowed or divorced or otherwise not part of a couple, it's conceivable that this eventual majority will no longer tolerate a set of social and legal protections that treat them as lesser beings for being unmarried.
-
Since the thread has gone there, the next logical progression is for the revocation of laws that confer benefits to married couples at all.
I agree that it was unfair for homosexual couples to be excluded from benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. But an increasing proportion of the population is not married. Whether they are never married and not planning to be, are widowed or divorced or otherwise not part of a couple, it's conceivable that this eventual majority will no longer tolerate a set of social and legal protections that treat them as lesser beings for being unmarried.
In your utopian world of the next logial progression, why must it be "couples?" Why are you limiting it to t to two people? Or to two humans?
-
Since the thread has gone there, the next logical progression is for the revocation of laws that confer benefits to married couples at all.
I agree that it was unfair for homosexual couples to be excluded from benefits enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. But an increasing proportion of the population is not married. Whether they are never married and not planning to be, are widowed or divorced or otherwise not part of a couple, it's conceivable that this eventual majority will no longer tolerate a set of social and legal protections that treat them as lesser beings for being unmarried.
In your utopian world of the next logial progression, why must it be "couples?" Wh are you limit Ng to t to two people? Or to take w humans?
Didn't say it was my utopia.
Most households used to be comprised of married couples. The majority influence the laws for their own benefit.
The "typical" household demographic is shifting and the majority in the future is likely to be single people. How long does any majority tolerate support for institutions that don't benefit them?
For another example, when a majority rent, either because it is better economically or because that's all they could ever afford, how long before they revolt against a tax system that favors their landlords at the expense of themselves.
-
I listened to an interview this week with Andrew Sullivan, who is a gay man who first publicly proposed the idea that gay people should be able to get married. At the time, he was a conservative and a lot of the people in the gay community hated him for it. The idea was to bring gay culture and the gay community into hetrosexual norms instead of having civil unions, which he felt kept gay people in separate status. I thought since we were on this topic, I'd add that context.
-
Back to the original topic, I am often shocked at how being educated, well-spoken, and, yes, rich allows me to benefit in ways that leave poorer and less-educated people at an unfair disadvantage.
For example we are renegotiating our mortgage for a better deal. Even ignoring that I have the time to put into this, I had to get certain identity documents certified. The legal firm handling the remortgage told me any solicitor could do it - I could walk in off the street, pay a fee, and they would certify a copy of my passport.
I didn't really want to pay a solicitor for that. I did some research online. I found that the post office would do it for a fixed fee of about £8. This was not mentioned in the letter I received, but when I called to check (again, time and access to a phone and the ability to withstand call charges from being put on hold etc) I was told, yes, that was fine.
I also asked if there was anywhere else it could be done. My education was telling me if there was one cheaper method they hadn't mentioned in the letter, perhaps there were more. Well, apparently I could just walk into my local bank and get them to do it for free! Why wasn't this or the post office mentioned in the letter? Cheaper, easier and widely available.
So I go to my local bank branch, where they know me because I use it for business banking. They say they only offer that service now if I'm buying one of their mortgages. Sorry. Most people would say, okthnksbye.
But again, my well-spoken and articulate self is given a privilege because I immediately say, "I find that rather ridiculous given the amount of business I do with this bank". I leave a silence. The lady I'm dealing with says she'll look into the rules again, maybe there is something they can do, let her get a supervisor etc.
Eventually I get exactly what I want done, for free, because I pulled the, "Excuse me, don't you know who I am" card. I did nothing to earn that card (the business banking I do is not my money, I just execute if for the company I work for), I just was brought up by people with money who got their own way by being unfailingly polite but firm.
I will save £100s a month on this mortgage. Home-ownership is a rich person's privilege in it's own right, but even so, by being a rich person with time to look into better deals, internet access to check what they are telling me, the gumption to ask for a different way and to object when I feel I am not getting the service I should, I get the whole thing cheaper again. The game is rigged.
I know this is only tangentially related to bulk-buying, but it just reminded me that things I take for granted - being able to call a number that is charged at a higher rate, or getting to a bank in business hours - all allow me to keep getting richer, while that option is not available to those who don't have my resources in the first place.