LizzieMaine
Bartender
- Messages
- 33,755
- Location
- Where The Tourists Meet The Sea
Not at all. It means you've been very lucky. We should all be so lucky.
No. I'm saying I have a hard time working up sympathy for people who claim they cannot afford food, yet find a way to afford what I consider luxuries. Whether they're "poor" or not.
So then what did you mean by that comment?
Not at all. It means you've been very lucky. We should all be so lucky.
So, if someone has central heat (but keeps the thermostat real low, for sake of argument), but needs to go to the food pantry because they lost their job and couldn't buy food in the meantime, you would not have sympathy for them? Should they have to let their pipes freeze to buy food? What if they are required to keep the thermostat at a certain temperature by their landlord, or face eviction (I have lived in such apartments, myself, and they actually did evict a person for letting their pipes freeze)? What if their heat is supplied as part of their rent, and not in their control? Should a parent not allow their child to have free school lunches if they have central heating in their apartment complex or heat assistance supplied by a government program?
I am trying to get this straight in my head. It doesn't make any sense to me, because I can see a lot of conditions where a person has a service like central heating but can't afford food.
Simply that you go to a person who is working class and not able to or afraid of not being able to make ends meet and make the comment.
No. I'm saying I have a hard time working up sympathy for people who claim they cannot afford food, yet find a way to afford what I consider luxuries. Whether they're "poor" or not.
I am not sure what you consider luxuries, but we vitrually have no money after rent. We go to places for free food handouts. We have a roof over out head, and that is enough luxury to last both mine and my grandmothers lifetime. If you know nothing about the person you are speaking of, then why say anything about them at all? Try putting yourself in their shoes before you make a judgement of them. Some people may look like the richest being in the world, when in reality, it is a front to hide their struggles in life.
A fourth factoid: the popular sentiment is that the millennial generation is self-involved and apathetic, yet voter turnout for individuals between 18 and 34 in U.S. elections has been on the rise overall . . .
Sounds like the early 1900s all over again.
No, under your definition, I am not working poor. Is that bad?
The issue is that you could become poor at any moment in this country. All it takes is one slip, one aspect of fate. For people who are already working poor, they are simply one crisis from becoming totally indigent.
Getting this back to the original topic..all of these things you mention are true. So are they not examples of exactly why millennials *should* be re-evaluating their expectations of how the world works?
I don't think anyone should be re-evaluating their expectations. I think we ought to demand that our expectations (particularly in regards to healthcare) be met.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone say millennials are apathetic. Quite the opposite.
. . . yep, millennials have so easy. The fight wars, face a tough job market, pay a unprecedented premium to better themselves through education, and don't give a damn about anything but themselves.
I don't think anyone should be re-evaluating their expectations. I think we ought to demand that our expectations (particularly in regards to healthcare) be met. It is a totally reasonable expectation that people in a society take care of one another, particularly in times of illness. We're all probably going to get our turn, unless a person just drops dead after a life of full health. I think we ought to be storming Washington, the insurance companies, and the whole healthcare-industrial complex.
But I also admit to being much more socialistic than a lot of people in the U.S. My attitude would not be considered odd in many countries, but it is considered odd in the U.S. by many.
ETA: I also think basic healthcare is a human right and shouldn't be a "for-profit" business; which is why I feel so strongly in my stance. But that is personal opinion.
I strongly recommend a book from the 1980s called "Class" by Paul Fussell, which although rather dated is still the best book on social class in America ever written. Extremely illuminating, although heavily biased by Fussell's own upper-middle-class upbringing, and also very funny. Once you've read this book you'll be able to peg the social class of any random person you see on the street up to about 90 percent accuracy.
Exactly... this is what I'm getting at. $14 an hour in 1991 was enough... you'd expect that to be double now, or at least over $20. It was over 20 years ago. It's sickening to know we've not even maintained, but backslid. You can argue if it's better to be a kid who's born into a working class family now and is always going to face poverty, or if it's better to have once been able to afford things and then slid into poverty. Either way, the person is poor. For no reason other than a lack of opportunity.
Tacoma is near Seattle, right? I couldn't live in Seattle for love nor money- it's hideously expensive (my in-laws live there). Well, ok, I couldn't live there because of the inlaws, but I generally don't like the mainstream culture (kind of snobby, what I have experienced on various trips) or the costs. If you want to move to upstate NY, it's cheap here to live. Anyplace north or west of Albany, with some areas excepted. $15 an hour can buy a small house in the better part of the city, $20 an hour (single income) could buy you a small house in the suburbs.
ETA: But the problem, again, is lack of $20 an hour jobs. Our largest employer is the university (3,000 employees) and the second is the hospitals. This is in a city which once had GE, Carrier, Syracuse China, several auto part makers, etc. GE once had 10,000 employees here, Carrier had *more*.
My insurance has increased from $383.00 to $683.00 to $900.00 a month during the past three years. Meanwhile my co-pay has doubled, prescription prices have increased, more hoops to jump through for what was once a basic service, and there always seems to be a bill for every check up. I get much less for paying a lot more. Benefits? They do not exist anymore. I work an after hours program to make up for lost money and to help pay for the medical bills of my Lady's daughter, and they cut that pay by 1/3. I make approximately $1300.00 per month less this year than last year. I am at work 60 hours a week not counting time spent after hours at home. I get $57.00 out of every $100.00 I make to pay the bills and then try to save for the impending rainy day. Life is tough, but could be so much worse that I feel fortunate.
45 mind south of. We moved here to help out husband's family when his father deployed. They pcs'd and we've been stuck here since.