Bee stings, car dents and dirty dishes

[rgraham666]

An interesting article about a book that re-examines the way society deals with poverty.

As someone who was almost stung to death once and is always a step away from kicking over a hive, I quite understand what it's about.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

There is something absolutely perverse about putting barriers in the way of the poor if they try to escape from poverty. It's as though there is an institutional need for lots of poor people to be "managed" so that the managers can afford a comfortable lifestyle. I would like to believe that it wasn't meant that way . . .

 

[popcorn2721]

There is something absolutely perverse about putting barriers in the way of the poor if they try to escape from poverty. It's as though there is an institutional need for lots of poor people to be "managed" so that the managers can afford a comfortable lifestyle. I would like to believe that it wasn't meant that way . . .

Yes it is perverse... but class warfare has been in place since the early 50s

 

[NoJo]

Yes it is perverse... but class warfare has been in place since the early 50s

You're confusing Class Warfare with Juke boxes. Class warfare is a lot older.

 

[Boxlicker101]

You're confusing Class Warfare with Juke boxes. Class warfare is a lot older.

Juke boxes are older than that too.

But probably not as long as class warfare, depending on how you define it.

 

[Boxlicker101]

There is something absolutely perverse about putting barriers in the way of the poor if they try to escape from poverty. It's as though there is an institutional need for lots of poor people to be "managed" so that the managers can afford a comfortable lifestyle. I would like to believe that it wasn't meant that way . . .

It wasn't. The idea was to help poor people ESCAPE poverty, not be stuck in it for ever.

"Poverty" is a relative thing. There are some people who are considered impoverished who are materially better off than some middle class people from about 100 years ago.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It wasn't. The idea was to help poor people ESCAPE poverty, not be stuck in it for ever.

"Poverty" is a relative thing. There are some people who are considered impoverished who are materially better off than some middle class people from about 100 years ago.

Both points are true. However, I still maintain that many of the rules seem designed to further the well-being of the managers more than to alieve the discomfort of the client base.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Both points are true. However, I still maintain that many of the rules seem designed to further the well-being of the managers more than to alieve the discomfort of the client base.

They probably were, or at least they are enforced with that goal in mind. Welfare bosses and social workers have fairly cushy jobs and, if they do them perfectly, they will be unemployed. So they discourage people from taking entry level or low paying jobs, even though that is all that most welfare recipients are qualified for. I did say "most", mind you. There are some who are supported on welfare for a short while, get their acts together and go on to prosper, art least relatively. "Bully for them!" I say.

 

[Guest]

They probably were, or at least they are enforced with that goal in mind. Welfare bosses and social workers have fairly cushy jobs and, if they do them perfectly, they will be unemployed. So they discourage people from taking entry level or low paying jobs, even though that is all that most welfare recipients are qualified for. I did say "most", mind you. There are some who are supported on welfare for a short while, get their acts together and go on to prosper, art least relatively. "Bully for them!" I say.

Welfare bosses and social workers have cushy jobs?

 

[ChilledVodkaIV]

taking entry level or low paying jobs, even though that is all that most welfare recipients are qualified for.

When his father died, George (who had been christened Adam) decided that none of this was worth it. But he was afraid of pain, like most of us, so instead he killed his social life.

A year or so later at the funeral of his mother, George decided it wasn't quite as bad as he'd thought and merely maimed his health, with cigarettes and absinthe. (pronounced absanth)

George's wife (the only person he allowed to call him Adam) was a childhood sweetheart and they married when she was pregnant at 16. (He being a worldly wise 20 year old) It was his wife that killed his delight in learning.

At thirty seven years old George resumed the name of Adam (in honour of his new beginning) and learned to read. That's when he discovered that he wasn't necessarily the centre of the universe. Then he learned to write.

Just before his fortieth birthday he wrote, but never published, his only book.

George (or Adam if you knew him in later years) was the nicest, kindest man you have ever met. He was a local hero, not least on the darts and dominoes team. He played harmonica and guitar and taught both his sons.

I've never seen him work a stroke in his life. He lives on the dole. He's so stupid he thinks both his sons are his.

 

[starrkers]

An interesting article about a book that re-examines the way society deals with poverty.

Yep, I geddit too - we buy our cars pre-dented

Was a time when we were clear of bees, but once you get too near the hive, seems you can never get clear again.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Welfare bosses and social workers have cushy jobs?

Relatively speaking. My first job with the state of CA was providing clerical support to some social workers. They were nice people, but pretty lazy, for the most part. It seemed to me they had much easier jobs than most of the people I had worked around, and I didn't change that opinion as I worked other places. They made pretty good money, and had good bennies, too.

Maybe "supervising social worker" is a better term than "welfare boss".

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yep, I geddit too - we buy our cars pre-dented

Was a time when we were clear of bees, but once you get too near the hive, seems you can never get clear again.

When cars are pre-dented, they cost less.


That is to say, used cars that have been in accidents tend to cost much less than new cars.

 

[starrkers]

When cars are pre-dented, they cost less.


That is to say, used cars that have been in accidents tend to cost much less than new cars.

Yeah, which is the only way we can afford something mechanically decent.

 

[cloudy]

One of my best friends here in town got a divorce about three years ago. She'd worked full-time during the marriage, and at reasonably successful positions, but when she was laid off from her last one, there just wasn't any others around, so she decided to stay home with her two young boys for awhile, even though money would be a little tight.

Then she and her husband got divorced.

Her boys are ages twelve and eight (just finished sixth and second grade). When they divorced, they only had one vehicle, and since he had a job, he got to keep it. He pays her a grand total of $100 a week child support. She could have actually gotten a little bit more per week, but would rather keep the relationship with her ex as friendly as possible because of the kids.

$400 is her TOTAL income for an entire month.

She gets an apartment under section 8, so her rent is only $58 a month, and she also receives food stamps somewhere around the amount of $400 a month.

That's it. That's all she has. A lot of times I end up paying $20 or $30 on her power bill for her because she just doesn't have it, or in the last week of the month, I'll buy her a few groceries because her foodstamps are gone. Growing boys can eat, and $400 in groceries really isn't much for all three of them.

She'd love to go back to work, but if she does, even part time, her rent shoots back up to normal levels (around $500 a month), and she loses her foodstamps. Plus, she doesn't have a car, and there's zero public transportation here. And I haven't even mentioned childcare yet.

It wouldn't pay her to go back to work. She would be in so deep a hole by working that she wouldn't ever see the light of day again.

So, she's not lazy, she's not uneducated, her work ethic and morals are fine, but why should she go back to work, and wonder if she'll have a place to live next month?

I don't blame her. In her situation, I wouldn't work either.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

One of my best friends here in town got a divorce about three years ago. She'd worked full-time during the marriage, and at reasonably successful positions, but when she was laid off from her last one, there just wasn't any others around, so she decided to stay home with her two young boys for awhile, even though money would be a little tight.

Then she and her husband got divorced.

Her boys are ages twelve and eight (just finished sixth and second grade). When they divorced, they only had one vehicle, and since he had a job, he got to keep it. He pays her a grand total of $100 a week child support. She could have actually gotten a little bit more per week, but would rather keep the relationship with her ex as friendly as possible because of the kids.

$400 is her TOTAL income for an entire month.

She gets an apartment under section 8, so her rent is only $58 a month, and she also receives food stamps somewhere around the amount of $400 a month.

That's it. That's all she has. A lot of times I end up paying $20 or $30 on her power bill for her because she just doesn't have it, or in the last week of the month, I'll buy her a few groceries because her foodstamps are gone. Growing boys can eat, and $400 in groceries really isn't much for all three of them.

She'd love to go back to work, but if she does, even part time, her rent shoots back up to normal levels (around $500 a month), and she loses her foodstamps. Plus, she doesn't have a car, and there's zero public transportation here. And I haven't even mentioned childcare yet.

It wouldn't pay her to go back to work. She would be in so deep a hole by working that she wouldn't ever see the light of day again.

So, she's not lazy, she's not uneducated, her work ethic and morals are fine, but why should she go back to work, and wonder if she'll have a place to live next month?

I don't blame her. In her situation, I wouldn't work either.

Back under Nixon there was floated the idea of "negative income tax" Tricky liked it until someone pointed out that there were a lot of people who could happily get by on the amount that they would receive without doing a stick of work. Don't tell anyone, but I'm one who would find a way. I'd have never gotten to Africa or the Arctic and I'm sure that my shop, studio and kitchen would have never existed. But think how many fish I'd have caught . . .

 

[S-Des]

It wouldn't pay her to go back to work. She would be in so deep a hole by working that she wouldn't ever see the light of day again.

So, she's not lazy, she's not uneducated, her work ethic and morals are fine, but why should she go back to work, and wonder if she'll have a place to live next month?

I don't blame her. In her situation, I wouldn't work either.

That sounds a lot like the situation Kiten was in a year ago. Add to that the ex refusing to pay his 1/2 of daycare, medical bills, or any other expenses that come up from week to week, and you have a serious mess. She could have taken him back to court to force him to pay (it was in their agreement), but Florida has some bizarre-assed rule about needing to make below $x or you can't get a court appointed attorney (and for months, they refused to stop counting his salary as part of her income). Then toss in the low paying nature of jobs available for someone who'd been a stay at home mom for 8 years (and had to miss work when her kids got sick or needed to see a specialist because there was no one else), and you have someone who should have gone into the welfare program.

Luckily for her, she had some help from her family, and has moved to a decent job that is almost enough to get her out of the situation she's in, but if she didn't have that family help (or had one more medical or car emergency), there would have been nothing she could have done. I'm not in favor of the opinion expressed by the author of the article, but single parents should always get an exception. They should get whatever help is necessary to get on their feet, because it's what is right (and we'll make that money back from them being able to get off public assistance and work full-time....not to mention seeing an improvement in the next generation). Everyone is faced with the "bee stings" and many people lack the skills to deal with it effectively. I'm much more in favor of training programs to help them learn (with small government assistance where it's needed), then just handing out unlimited benefits to people and hoping it'll all work out.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

That sounds a lot like the situation Kiten was in a year ago. Add to that the ex refusing to pay his 1/2 of daycare, medical bills, or any other expenses that come up from week to week, and you have a serious mess. She could have taken him back to court to force him to pay (it was in their agreement), but Florida has some bizarre-assed rule about needing to make below $x or you can't get a court appointed attorney (and for months, they refused to stop counting his salary as part of her income). Then toss in the low paying nature of jobs available for someone who'd been a stay at home mom for 8 years (and had to miss work when her kids got sick or needed to see a specialist because there was no one else), and you have someone who should have gone into the welfare program.

Luckily for her, she had some help from her family, and has moved to a decent job that is almost enough to get her out of the situation she's in, but if she didn't have that family help (or had one more medical or car emergency), there would have been nothing she could have done. I'm not in favor of the opinion expressed by the author of the article, but single parents should always get an exception. They should get whatever help is necessary to get on their feet, because it's what is right (and we'll make that money back from them being able to get off public assistance and work full-time....not to mention seeing an improvement in the next generation). Everyone is faced with the "bee stings" and many people lack the skills to deal with it effectively. I'm much more in favor of training programs to help them learn (with small government assistance where it's needed), then just handing out unlimited benefits to people and hoping it'll all work out.

Just don't penalize people for trying! That's the crux of the matter. If the idea is to uplift people, don't force then to stay down. Stupid system!

 

[rgraham666]

Back when I was on welfare, the premier (equivalent of governor) of this province cut welfare by 23%. When questioned about it he said, "If they're that hard up let them get help from their families."

I took him seriously. Borrowed a little from my family. Being the honest person I am I reported it to welfare.

My next check they took every cent I borrowed off of it.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Back when I was on welfare, the premier (equivalent of governor) of this province cut welfare by 23%. When questioned about it he said, "If they're that hard up let them get help from their families."

I took him seriously. Borrowed a little from my family. Being the honest person I am I reported it to welfare.

My next check they took every cent I borrowed off of it.

Typical! You guys really need to sink Ottawa in the Great Lakes. Canada will be so much better off without it . . .

 

[S-Des]

Just don't penalize people for trying! That's the crux of the matter. If the idea is to uplift people, don't force then to stay down. Stupid system!

Agreed. This is the ultimate consequence of our divided government. Some things that should be no-brainers (like child-care for single parents who want to work but can't) don't get done while each side accuses the other of stupidity as a way to play to their constituencies. When the Democrats wanted to raise the levels of government health-care support (as high as $60,000 annual income receiving aid), Bush vetoed it, and was immediately attacked as not caring about the poor. It probably would have been a lot more constructive to work on issues that affected people who really were poor and in a situation they could not escape on their own, but it wouldn't have helped score as many political points.

BTW, that's not a shot at the Dems. The Republicans are more than happy to use the exact same tactic. It's a political disease, and is going to last until the public stands up and stops accepting it.

 

[Elianna]

Agreed. This is the ultimate consequence of our divided government. Some things that should be no-brainers (like child-care for single parents who want to work but can't) don't get done while each side accuses the other of stupidity as a way to play to their constituencies.

I think that one of the reasons that welfare doesn't work is because we have forgotten the "village" mentality.... you know.... remember when the lady down the street lost her mother? What did you do? Everyone in the neighborhood brought her food for the entire week so that she didn't have to worry about cooking through such a difficult time. The guy down the way lost his job? Neighbors started talking and kept an eye out for a job.

The problem is that we're a ME ME ME society. We all turn the other way. We've lost the sense of community and watching out for your little village. When I was a kid, our block watched out for each other. The moms did a co-op, the retired folk pitched in... Those same retired folk who couldn't do much had neighborhood kids mow their lawn; we all knew they couldn't afford it.

I remember one time when my single mom came home crying. We had $20 for food to last for 2 weeks. She knew we wouldn't make it. Dad defaulted on child support and she was making below poverty line. To our surprise an envelope of $500 cash showed up in our mailbox. We still don't know who did it, but... that's what communities do.

Where did that sense of taking care of each other go?

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I think that one of the reasons that welfare doesn't work is because we have forgotten the "village" mentality.... you know.... remember when the lady down the street lost her mother? What did you do? Everyone in the neighborhood brought her food for the entire week so that she didn't have to worry about cooking through such a difficult time. The guy down the way lost his job? Neighbors started talking and kept an eye out for a job.

The problem is that we're a ME ME ME society. We all turn the other way. We've lost the sense of community and watching out for your little village. When I was a kid, our block watched out for each other. The moms did a co-op, the retired folk pitched in... Those same retired folk who couldn't do much had neighborhood kids mow their lawn; we all knew they couldn't afford it.

I remember one time when my single mom came home crying. We had $20 for food to last for 2 weeks. She knew we wouldn't make it. Dad defaulted on child support and she was making below poverty line. To our surprise an envelope of $500 cash showed up in our mailbox. We still don't know who did it, but... that's what communities do.

Where did that sense of taking care of each other go?

Most of us don't live in villages. When I was a girl my family lived in a suburb and we knew our neighbors and we helped each other. We saw each other when we were out in the front yard or walking on the street. If womebody moved out of one of the houses we helped them with the moving and when somebody moved in, we helped them too and got to know them.

I live in an apartment in a city now and I don't even know my neighbors. If somebody moves in or out, I don't even know about it. They don't know about me either. It is too bad but that is just the way it is.

And poor people don't usually live in houses.

 

[S-Des]

I think that one of the reasons that welfare doesn't work is because we have forgotten the "village" mentality.... you know.... remember when the lady down the street lost her mother? What did you do? Everyone in the neighborhood brought her food for the entire week so that she didn't have to worry about cooking through such a difficult time. The guy down the way lost his job? Neighbors started talking and kept an eye out for a job.

I think this is where Democrats and Republicans lose the ability to see the rationality behind each other's arguments (I'm an Independent, and pretty much fall to the Right as often as I do to the Left). I agree 100% with your comment. The problem is, when you try to extrapolate that out to "the government" taking the place of the village (using money it forcibly takes from people at the levels it deems appropriate), you create an untenable situation. Charity works great when handled by small organizations. Doctors Without Borders does more with an annual budget of less than a million dollars than is believable. Once the government tries to do the same thing, you get bureaucracy with middle men siphoning off the money, rules that don't allow intelligent (cheap) alternatives, and ridiculous walls that get set up keeping people who need help away from it, while forcing others to stay in a broken system or face hopelessness.

We need better help for people, but in my opinion, it needs to be local and private. The question is, how do you do that and make sure everyone is taken care of? The truth is, I don't know. But I believe in my heart that as long as we try to find ways for the government to do it, we will continue to fail and officials will fight over their share of the pie instead of working together to fix the problem. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe everyone will disagree with me, but I just don't ever see that approach working.

 

[cloudy]

I think this is where Democrats and Republicans lose the ability to see the rationality behind each other's arguments (I'm an Independent, and pretty much fall to the Right as often as I do to the Left). I agree 100% with your comment. The problem is, when you try to extrapolate that out to "the government" taking the place of the village (using money it forcibly takes from people at the levels it deems appropriate), you create an untenable situation. Charity works great when handled by small organizations. Doctors Without Borders does more with an annual budget of less than a million dollars than is believable. Once the government tries to do the same thing, you get bureaucracy with middle men siphoning off the money, rules that don't allow intelligent (cheap) alternatives, and ridiculous walls that get set up keeping people who need help away from it, while forcing others to stay in a broken system or face hopelessness.

We need better help for people, but in my opinion, it needs to be local and private. The question is, how do you do that and make sure everyone is taken care of? The truth is, I don't know. But I believe in my heart that as long as we try to find ways for the government to do it, we will continue to fail and officials will fight over their share of the pie instead of working together to fix the problem. Maybe I'm wrong or maybe everyone will disagree with me, but I just don't ever see that approach working.

One of the things I really miss about the rez is the sense of community. There's some bad things about it: everybody knows your business, and if they don't, they'll make some up, but the good really outweighs the bad.

It's a poor place: most families barely make it, but no one ever goes hungry. I've walked a couple of blocks to a cousin's house to borrow enough coffee for a pot in the morning, and walked home with two big bags filled with venison, eggs, salt, tea, coffee, bacon, etc. I asked for a little bit of coffee, but they make sure that everyone has enough to eat.

Ditto with a place to sleep. Your parents kick you out? No worries, someone will find a bed for you, and you'll be welcome as long as you need it, as long as you pitch in with the chores around the house.

A couple of years ago a neighbor had a fire start early one morning in their kitchen. It didn't destroy the house at all, but the kitchen was completely gutted. By the end of the day, they had a stove, a refrigerator, and a microwave - they weren't new, but they worked, and they were given freely. They also had a freezer full of venison, and the cupboards were full of staples like flour, sugar, potatos, etc. - all given to them by people stopping by the house because they'd heard.

That sense of community is missing in most places, and that's sad.