Languish.org

QuoteThis is what happened when I drove my Mercedes to pick up food stamps (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/07/08/this-is-what-happened-when-i-drove-my-mercedes-to-pick-up-food-stamps/)

Sara Bareilles played softly through the surround-sound speakers of my husband's 2003 Mercedes Kompressor as I sat idling at a light. I'd never been to this church before, but I could see it from where I was, across from an old park, abandoned in the chilly September air. The clouds hung low as I pulled the sleek, pewter machine into the lot. But I wasn't going to pray or attend services. I was picking up food stamps.

Even then, I couldn't quite believe it. This wasn't supposed to happen to people like me.

I'll leave the rest for you to read at the WP.

I think its an odd, and somewhat damaging, shift in attitudes that poor people are not expected to have any nice things.  Used to be people would scrape and save for a good pair of shoes, or a nice car, or something similar.  Now they're expected to buy the cheapest shit Wal-Mart or Schmoymy's House of Clunkers sells, even if it costs more in the long run.  On top of that, where did this attitude that you need to sell all your valuables when you get poor come from?

Fuck the poor.  Repossess that Benz and give it to somebody who has earned it.

I think she raises some good points though I have to admit that I got distracted a bit when I read that her family is now flush again and she's attending grad school.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 11:04:29 AM
I think its an odd, and somewhat damaging, shift in attitudes that poor people are not expected to have any nice things.  Used to be people would scrape and save for a good pair of shoes, or a nice car, or something similar.  Now they're expected to buy the cheapest shit Wal-Mart or Schmoymy's House of Clunkers sells, even if it costs more in the long run.  On top of that, where did this attitude that you need to sell all your valuables when you get poor come from?

Is it a shift? My father still holds onto anger on how my grandfather always got a new cadillac every few years despite the fact that he could barely provide the minimum necessities for his 9 children.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
I think she raises some good points though I have to admit that I got distracted a bit when I read that her family is now flush again and she's attending grad school.

Yeah. After all, the fucked are expected to stay fucked permanently, which is why we're supposed to be gutting all these goverment programs that do nothing more that help The Takers Take.  Who the hell does she think she is?  Entitled white bitch.

I have to admit I get a little peeved at seeing the woman who gets free child care for her 4 kids at my kids day care place get into her current year car when I'm writing out that check every week when I drop my two off and get back into my 9-year old Camry.

If I want to get annoyed at poor people splurging on luxuries I deny myself I will, damnit.

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2014, 11:26:02 AM
I have to admit I get a little peeved at seeing the woman who gets free child care for her 4 kids at my kids day care place get into her current year car when I'm writing out that check every week when I drop my two off and get back into my 9-year old Camry.

If I want to get annoyed at poor people splurging on luxuries I deny myself I will, damnit.

My guess is she would gladly exchange your financial position for hers.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 11:24:53 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
I think she raises some good points though I have to admit that I got distracted a bit when I read that her family is now flush again and she's attending grad school.

Yeah. After all, the fucked are expected to stay fucked permanently, which is why we're supposed to be gutting all these goverment programs that do nothing more that help The Takers Take.  Who the hell does she think she is?  Entitled white bitch.

No, that isn't what I was thinking at all.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:33:34 AM

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2014, 11:26:02 AM
I have to admit I get a little peeved at seeing the woman who gets free child care for her 4 kids at my kids day care place get into her current year car when I'm writing out that check every week when I drop my two off and get back into my 9-year old Camry.

If I want to get annoyed at poor people splurging on luxuries I deny myself I will, damnit.

My guess is she would gladly exchange your financial position for hers.

Well, of course. With more money she could buy more things. :huh:

derspiess:  all up in everybody's bidness.

:derkravitz:

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:33:34 AM

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2014, 11:26:02 AM
I have to admit I get a little peeved at seeing the woman who gets free child care for her 4 kids at my kids day care place get into her current year car when I'm writing out that check every week when I drop my two off and get back into my 9-year old Camry.

If I want to get annoyed at poor people splurging on luxuries I deny myself I will, damnit.

My guess is she would gladly exchange your financial position for hers.

Making sacrifices & paying her own way?  Doubt it.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 11:36:16 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:33:34 AM

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2014, 11:26:02 AM
I have to admit I get a little peeved at seeing the woman who gets free child care for her 4 kids at my kids day care place get into her current year car when I'm writing out that check every week when I drop my two off and get back into my 9-year old Camry.

If I want to get annoyed at poor people splurging on luxuries I deny myself I will, damnit.

My guess is she would gladly exchange your financial position for hers.

Well, of course. With more money she could buy more things. :huh:

Exactly.  Not sure why there is surprise that people use the resources they have to buy things.  That is the predominant culture after all.

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2014, 11:36:59 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:33:34 AM

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2014, 11:26:02 AM
I have to admit I get a little peeved at seeing the woman who gets free child care for her 4 kids at my kids day care place get into her current year car when I'm writing out that check every week when I drop my two off and get back into my 9-year old Camry.

If I want to get annoyed at poor people splurging on luxuries I deny myself I will, damnit.

My guess is she would gladly exchange your financial position for hers.

Making sacrifices & paying her own way?  Doubt it.

Yeah, we have been around this issue before where people like you think that poor people deserve their lot in life.   And no matter how much evidence is cited to the contrary you still hold to that view.  I am no longer astonished.  I simply accept that there will always be the equivalent of the Republican party.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:39:00 AM
Exactly.  Not sure why their is surprise that people use the resources they have to buy things.  That is the predominant culture after all.

Or maybe that auto leases are easier to acquire with cash down when you have shitty or no credit than it is to get an auto loan.

But hey, let's just bitch about them instead.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 11:43:58 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:39:00 AM
Exactly.  Not sure why their is surprise that people use the resources they have to buy things.  That is the predominant culture after all.

Or maybe that auto leases are easier to acquire with cash down when you have shitty or no credit than it is to get an auto loan.

But hey, let's just bitch about them instead.

That won't answer the inevitable response from Spicey "Poors should take the bus before they get a better car than me."

But then it dawned on me.  Maybe he is one of the poors and is suffering from self hate  :hmm:

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:47:04 AM
But then it dawned on me.  Maybe he is one of the poors and is suffering from self hate  :hmm:

Well, I'm definitely not rich.

That bitch probably doesn't even stockpile ChiCom surplus ammo. :yeah:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 11:52:11 AM
That bitch probably doesn't even stockpile ChiCom surplus ammo. :yeah:

I have one box left of that stuff :(

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2014, 11:49:52 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:47:04 AM
But then it dawned on me.  Maybe he is one of the poors and is suffering from self hate  :hmm:

Well, I'm definitely not rich.

Logically the closer you are to needing assistance the more you should support programs that provide assistance.  The irony is that I pay more in taxes (signficantly more) than you probably do to support programs I will never need and yet I am a much stronger advocate for them.

And its not just you and me.  This seems to be a real paradox in all Western countries.

Well, you definitely outdid me on the arrogance & self righteousness.  Congrats :)

For me, the real paradox is that the more I am around rich folks the more left-wing I become, and the more I am around poor folks the more right wing I become.  :P

Put me for a week in my friend's in-laws' "compound" and I begin to think that punitive taxation rates and redistribution of the assets in social programs to support the disadvantaged is a matter of simple justice, Ide-style.

Put me for a week at another old buddy of mine's cottage with his dad and his dad's new wife - a woman who is a part of a whole clan, not one of whom has done a day's work in their entire lives (well, other than casual hooking and drug-dealing), whose every need is supported by their ability to scam one government assistance plan after another - and I could become a card-carrying republitard.  :lol:

Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 12:07:05 PM
Put me for a week at another old buddy of mine's cottage with his dad and his dad's new wife - a woman who is a part of a whole clan, not one of whom has done a day's work in their entire lives (well, other than casual hooking and drug-dealing), whose every need is supported by their ability to scam one government assistance plan after another - and I could become a card-carrying republitard.  :lol:

I grew up in West Virginia.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:56:26 AM

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2014, 11:49:52 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:47:04 AM
But then it dawned on me.  Maybe he is one of the poors and is suffering from self hate  :hmm:

Well, I'm definitely not rich.

Logically the closer you are to needing assistance the more you should support programs that provide assistance.  The irony is that I pay more in taxes (signficantly more) than you probably do to support programs I will never need and yet I am a much stronger advocate for them.

And its not just you and me.  This seems to be a real paradox in all Western countries.

I don't think that's a paradox, and I don't think that really does apply to all Western countries.  I think this is a US paradox, and not much of a paradox at that.  It's a result of politicians fanning the flames of non-economic issues to get people so fired up against the other party that they would fight against their economic interests. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:56:26 AM

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2014, 11:49:52 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:47:04 AM
But then it dawned on me.  Maybe he is one of the poors and is suffering from self hate  :hmm:

Well, I'm definitely not rich.

Logically the closer you are to needing assistance the more you should support programs that provide assistance.  The irony is that I pay more in taxes (signficantly more) than you probably do to support programs I will never need and yet I am a much stronger advocate for them.

And its not just you and me.  This seems to be a real paradox in all Western countries.

Why is it a paradox, if people are looking to their own self interest?  The working poor and the lower-middle class generally have too much income to qualify for most forms of assistance, so they derive no benefit from those programs, yet a lot of the tax burden required to pay for those programs come out of their wages.  The upper-middle class and the upper class, OTOH, don't miss the money taken from them in taxes nearly as much, and often are classic limousine liberals.

Quote from: dps on July 09, 2014, 12:13:24 PM
Why is it a paradox, if people are looking to their own self interest?  The working poor and the lower-middle class generally have too much income to qualify for most forms of assistance, so they derive no benefit from those programs, yet a lot of the tax burden required to pay for those programs come out of their wages.  The upper-middle class and the upper class, OTOH, don't miss the money taken from them in taxes nearly as much, and often are classic limousine liberals.

It's because everyone is correct.  For the working poor and lower-middle class taxes are too high, and for the upper-middle/upper class taxes are too low.

Quote from: dps on July 09, 2014, 12:13:24 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:56:26 AM

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2014, 11:49:52 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 11:47:04 AM
But then it dawned on me.  Maybe he is one of the poors and is suffering from self hate  :hmm:

Well, I'm definitely not rich.

Logically the closer you are to needing assistance the more you should support programs that provide assistance.  The irony is that I pay more in taxes (signficantly more) than you probably do to support programs I will never need and yet I am a much stronger advocate for them.

And its not just you and me.  This seems to be a real paradox in all Western countries.

Why is it a paradox, if people are looking to their own self interest?  The working poor and the lower-middle class generally have too much income to qualify for most forms of assistance, so they derive no benefit from those programs, yet a lot of the tax burden required to pay for those programs come out of their wages.  The upper-middle class and the upper class, OTOH, don't miss the money taken from them in taxes nearly as much, and often are classic limousine liberals.

I think you have described the paradox quite well. Those who dont qualify and are just on the margins should be advocating for increases in support so that they do qualify rather than advocating for reductions so as to reduce further the chances that they will quality.

As for not missing the money, I dont think it is that at all.  I think the real issue is that a lot of rich people are able to structure their financial affairs so that they pay very little tax.  If a proper progressive tax system was created perhaps that would deal with the paradox on the upper end but it still doesnt answer the question of why people who actually need more support would advocate against support systems.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 11:18:28 AM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 11:04:29 AM
I think its an odd, and somewhat damaging, shift in attitudes that poor people are not expected to have any nice things.  Used to be people would scrape and save for a good pair of shoes, or a nice car, or something similar.  Now they're expected to buy the cheapest shit Wal-Mart or Schmoymy's House of Clunkers sells, even if it costs more in the long run.  On top of that, where did this attitude that you need to sell all your valuables when you get poor come from?

Is it a shift? My father still holds onto anger on how my grandfather always got a new cadillac every few years despite the fact that he could barely provide the minimum necessities for his 9 children.

There is a threshold of acceptability, which I didn't make clear in my original post.  The saving part should not compromise basic necessities.  I think your father's anger in that case is justified.  Plus, Caddies are shit for reliability. :P

Quote from: derspiess on July 09, 2014, 11:26:02 AM
I have to admit I get a little peeved at seeing the woman who gets free child care for her 4 kids at my kids day care place get into her current year car when I'm writing out that check every week when I drop my two off and get back into my 9-year old Camry.

If I want to get annoyed at poor people splurging on luxuries I deny myself I will, damnit.

Without knowing a) the model or b) the ownership situation, it is hard to judge that.  Just this morning I heard a radio ad for a local dealer offering barebones Camrys on lease for $149/month.  Seems like a really good deal if you need a reliable car for hauling around 4 kids.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 12:20:11 PM
I think you have described the paradox quite well. Those who dont qualify and are just on the margins should be advocating for increases in support so that they do qualify rather than advocating for reductions so as to reduce further the chances that they will quality.

As for not missing the money, I dont think it is that at all.  I think the real issue is that a lot of rich people are able to structure their financial affairs so that they pay very little tax.  If a proper progressive tax system was created perhaps that would deal with the paradox on the upper end but it still doesnt answer the question of why people who actually need more support would advocate against support systems.

I think there are two reasons:

1) The lack of tapering in assistance.  When people get above the threshold for assistance, in many cases they actually regress.  That means the working poor[1] can end up worse off than people who don't work and rely on assistance.  It also provides a disincentive for people on assistance to actually find work, because they might actually make their situation worse.  This breeds resentment amongst the working poor for people on assistance, and in turn on the assistance programs themselves.

2) Many white working poor view assistance programs as racially motivated.  They see non-white people disproportionately benefit from them and believe it is because they are minorities, not because they are more likely to be poor.

[1] Which was a good description of most of my childhood, actually.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 12:20:11 PM
I think you have described the paradox quite well. Those who dont qualify and are just on the margins should be advocating for increases in support so that they do qualify rather than advocating for reductions so as to reduce further the chances that they will quality.

As for not missing the money, I dont think it is that at all.  I think the real issue is that a lot of rich people are able to structure their financial affairs so that they pay very little tax.  If a proper progressive tax system was created perhaps that would deal with the paradox on the upper end but it still doesnt answer the question of why people who actually need more support would advocate against support systems.

I think the part you are not allowing for is that there is a bit of a culture clash among those on the margins. Some see social assistance as a legitimate source of income and some see it as a life preserver of last resort - a source of shame if needed.

The latter tend to end up resenting the former, all the moreso because they are making real sacrifices to support themselves. As in "I bust my ass to pay for my car and daycare, while that person gets everything paid for by social assistance - and has a nicer car than mine" - the derspies point. They put a positive moral value on an ethic of self-reliance. 

Upper middle class types generally don't actually see this in the flesh as it were, to them it is mostly just anecdote. What they see, is how very much money people like them have, and how unfair it is that some have so much, while others in society are in need. They put a positive moral value on social concience.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 12:34:03 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 12:20:11 PM
I think you have described the paradox quite well. Those who dont qualify and are just on the margins should be advocating for increases in support so that they do qualify rather than advocating for reductions so as to reduce further the chances that they will quality.

As for not missing the money, I dont think it is that at all.  I think the real issue is that a lot of rich people are able to structure their financial affairs so that they pay very little tax.  If a proper progressive tax system was created perhaps that would deal with the paradox on the upper end but it still doesnt answer the question of why people who actually need more support would advocate against support systems.

I think there are two reasons:

1) The lack of tapering in assistance.  When people get above the threshold for assistance, in many cases they actually regress.  That means the working poor[1] can end up worse off than people who don't work and rely on assistance.  It also provides a disincentive for people on assistance to actually find work, because they might actually make their situation worse.  This breeds resentment amongst the working poor for people on assistance, and in turn on the assistance programs themselves.

2) Many white working poor view assistance programs as racially motivated.  They see non-white people disproportionately benefit from them and believe it is because they are minorities, not because they are more likely to be poor.

[1] Which was a good description of most of my childhood, actually.

The racial thing is more of an issue in the US, I think.

In Canada, the big racial issues revolve around native Canadians, who are dealt with by a whole different set of systems (at least, the ones on reservations).

Don't worry, we shit on them, too.

I'd like to thank CC for paying his high taxes & thru the magic of periquation enabling me to have cheap day care for my kids.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
I think she raises some good points though I have to admit that I got distracted a bit when I read that her family is now flush again and she's attending grad school.

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

You have a bad streak and end up in financial hardship, you get some assistance to help you through the bad patch so it doesn't compromise your ability to get back on your own two feet, and then you get your shit together and move up from your crappy position?

Would it be better if her family still didn't have any money, she was not attending grad school, and they were still on assistance?

Or would it be better that the threshold for and level of assistance was so low that her family now had some money, but less than being flush and not enough for her to be going to grad school?

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 12:34:03 PM
2) Many white working poor view assistance programs as racially motivated.  They see non-white people disproportionately benefit from them and believe it is because they are minorities, not because they are more likely to

I agree, and I think racial component is behind a lot of bad policies in US.  Almost every policy has a disparate impact race-wise, and that fact does not go unnoticed.  Whether it's increasing social safety net or reducing absurd prison sentences, black people would benefit more than white people, and at that point a significant segment of white people are going to search for an explanation as to why that would be a bad idea.

I ate government cheese back in the 80s.

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 09, 2014, 12:46:51 PM
I'd like to thank CC for paying his high taxes & thru the magic of periquation enabling me to have cheap day care for my kids.

It'd be nice if we could have cheap daycare here in BC too, but the principle is sound IMO. I don't pay CC level taxes, but one day I hope to :)

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 12:47:59 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
I think she raises some good points though I have to admit that I got distracted a bit when I read that her family is now flush again and she's attending grad school.

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

You have a bad streak and end up in financial hardship, you get some assistance to help you through the bad patch so it doesn't compromise your ability to get back on your own two feet, and then you get your shit together and move up from your crappy position?

Yeah, that's how it's supposed to work.  Don't actually work all that often, though.

From the article:

QuoteWe still have that Mercedes.

Good decision. :)

Quote from: dps on July 09, 2014, 12:49:51 PM
Yeah, that's how it's supposed to work.  Don't actually work all that often, though.

I don't know if that's really true, but I am pretty sure that you strongly want to believe that it is true.

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2014, 12:52:17 PM
From the article:

QuoteWe still have that Mercedes.

Good decision. :)

:lol:

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 12:47:59 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 11:17:02 AM
I think she raises some good points though I have to admit that I got distracted a bit when I read that her family is now flush again and she's attending grad school.

Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

You have a bad streak and end up in financial hardship, you get some assistance to help you through the bad patch so it doesn't compromise your ability to get back on your own two feet, and then you get your shit together and move up from your crappy position?

Would it be better if her family still didn't have any money, she was not attending grad school, and they were still on assistance?

Or would it be better that the threshold for and level of assistance was so low that her family now had some money, but less than being flush and not enough for her to be going to grad school?

Like I said to Seedy that wasn't what I was thinking.

Now I know my thought wasn't generous, but it was more around the fact that while certainly a period of emotional turmoil for her family, this was really more like a blip in the history of their lives - so I wasn't sure to what extent I should really take her experiences and try to generalize them to people who are perpetually trapped in poverty. It's like a certain forum member here who described his life as a poor person.

I am, of course, very glad that this woman is back on her feet - though assuredly the mentions of Obama made me think again if there is anything that he can't do. :D

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 12:59:07 PM
Like I said to Seedy that wasn't what I was thinking.

Now I know my thought wasn't generous, but it was more around the fact that while certainly a period of emotional turmoil for her family, this was really more like a blip in the history of their lives - so I wasn't sure to what extent I should really take her experiences and try to generalize them to people who are perpetually trapped in poverty. It's like a certain forum member here who described his life as a poor person.

Okay, that's fair enough as far as it goes :)

QuoteI am, of course, very glad that this woman is back on her feet - though assuredly the mentions of Obama made me think again if there is anything that he can't do. :D

It does seem that Obama has become a bit of an iconic symbol for all sorts of issues for people all over the political map in the US.

Thanks Obama!

Our euroweenie social system would make you sell a Mercedes before you could get social security. You may own an "appropriate" car, but a 2003 Mercedes back in 2009 would probably be above that value limit.

Quote from: DGuller on July 09, 2014, 12:48:37 PM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 12:34:03 PM
2) Many white working poor view assistance programs as racially motivated.  They see non-white people disproportionately benefit from them and believe it is because they are minorities, not because they are more likely to

I agree, and I think racial component is behind a lot of bad policies in US.  Almost every policy has a disparate impact race-wise, and that fact does not go unnoticed.  Whether it's increasing social safety net or reducing absurd prison sentences, black people would benefit more than white people, and at that point a significant segment of white people are going to search for an explanation as to why that would be a bad idea.

It's even worse than that, at least where social assistance is concerned.  There are white working poor (my dad was one of them) who believe that white people are denied benefits or otherwise obstructed just because they are white.  Thus, even the white people who would benefit don't think they are going to actually get anything out of it.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 12:59:07 PM
Now I know my thought wasn't generous, but it was more around the fact that while certainly a period of emotional turmoil for her family, this was really more like a blip in the history of their lives - so I wasn't sure to what extent I should really take her experiences and try to generalize them to people who are perpetually trapped in poverty. It's like a certain forum member here who described his life as a poor person.

Thing is - in both cases, nobody was asking you to generalize.  :hmm:

Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 01:06:43 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 12:59:07 PM
Now I know my thought wasn't generous, but it was more around the fact that while certainly a period of emotional turmoil for her family, this was really more like a blip in the history of their lives - so I wasn't sure to what extent I should really take her experiences and try to generalize them to people who are perpetually trapped in poverty. It's like a certain forum member here who described his life as a poor person.

Thing is - in both cases, nobody was asking you to generalize.  :hmm:

I'm not sure that Darlena's story would be more than a curiosity piece if we weren't expect to think upon a general takeaway.

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2014, 01:04:32 PM
Our euroweenie social system would make you sell a Mercedes before you could get social security. You may own an "appropriate" car, but a 2003 Mercedes back in 2009 would probably be above that value limit.

So, you are supposed to drive an unreliable piece of shit just because you are poor?  Especially when you already own the car outright?

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 01:08:39 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 01:06:43 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 12:59:07 PM
Now I know my thought wasn't generous, but it was more around the fact that while certainly a period of emotional turmoil for her family, this was really more like a blip in the history of their lives - so I wasn't sure to what extent I should really take her experiences and try to generalize them to people who are perpetually trapped in poverty. It's like a certain forum member here who described his life as a poor person.

Thing is - in both cases, nobody was asking you to generalize.  :hmm:

I'm not sure that Darlena's story would be more than a curiosity piece if we weren't expect to think upon a general takeaway.

I'm pretty sure that the "takeaway" was something along the lines of 'a spell of poverty can potentially happen to you through bad choices or bad luck, even if you are not a member of the inderclass'. Not 'I am now just like the underclass - you can generalize from my (months?) of being poor, as to what living in the underclass is really like'.

You like to rub in your point that this sort of thing isn't "real" poverty. I suppose it isn't, if by "real poverty" you mean "now a member of the underclass". But it is also not meaningless. 

Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 01:16:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 01:08:39 PM
I'm not sure that Darlena's story would be more than a curiosity piece if we weren't expect to think upon a general takeaway.

I'm pretty sure that the "takeaway" was something along the lines of 'a spell of poverty can potentially happen to you through bad choices or bad luck, even if you are not a member of the inderclass'. Not 'I am now just like the underclass - you can generalize from my (months?) of being poor, as to what living in the underclass is really like'.

You like to rub in your point that this sort of thing isn't "real" poverty. I suppose it isn't, if by "real poverty" you mean "now a member of the underclass". But it is also not meaningless.

Indeed.  It's a message to those of us who do not currently need a safety net that having one is a benefit to us, too.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 01:13:14 PM
So, you are supposed to drive an unreliable piece of shit just because you are poor?  Especially when you already own the car outright?

I am not exactly an expert on the finer details of social security here, but in general the state expects you to liquidate your wealth before you get any public assistance. There are some exceptions, but as far as I can tell, the value limit for cars is about 7.500 Euro. There is some leeway for the social security office, but they would not let you keep a 20.000 Euro car unless there is a good reason (let's say it's handicapped-enabled or so).

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 01:13:14 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2014, 01:04:32 PM
Our euroweenie social system would make you sell a Mercedes before you could get social security. You may own an "appropriate" car, but a 2003 Mercedes back in 2009 would probably be above that value limit.

So, you are supposed to drive an unreliable piece of shit just because you are poor?  Especially when you already own the car outright?

Actually, from what I've heard from owners, generally speaking the Mercedes is not the car you want to own if you are suddenly rendered poor - because of its overall extremely high upkeep/maintenance costs.

Can't speak to specific models though.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 01:19:43 PMIndeed.  It's a message to those of us who do not currently need a safety net that having one is a benefit to us, too.

Excellent point.

It's not just "people like them" who benefit. "People like us" do too.

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 09, 2014, 12:46:51 PM
I'd like to thank CC for paying his high taxes & thru the magic of periquation enabling me to have cheap day care for my kids.

You are welcome. :D

Baron and Malthus, you make good points explaining the paradox.

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 12:49:17 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 09, 2014, 12:46:51 PM
I'd like to thank CC for paying his high taxes & thru the magic of periquation enabling me to have cheap day care for my kids.

It'd be nice if we could have cheap daycare here in BC too, but the principle is sound IMO. I don't pay CC level taxes, but one day I hope to :)

It's very, very expensive at the state level but imo, worth it.

It's also very hard to get in.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 01:13:14 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2014, 01:04:32 PM
Our euroweenie social system would make you sell a Mercedes before you could get social security. You may own an "appropriate" car, but a 2003 Mercedes back in 2009 would probably be above that value limit.

So, you are supposed to drive an unreliable piece of shit just because you are poor?  Especially when you already own the car outright?

AFAIK Sweden is similar. You get the normal generous healthcare, education, extra money for kids etc etc, but if you in spite of that need tax money to live then you have to spend your own money first. Which makes sense I think.

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 01:21:17 PM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 01:19:43 PMIndeed.  It's a message to those of us who do not currently need a safety net that having one is a benefit to us, too.

Excellent point.

It's not just "people like them" who benefit. "People like us" do too.

Yup.

My understanding of Garbon's POV is that 'people like us are, by definintion, 'not poor'. So this story is just an anomalous anecedote - a 'curiousity piece' - without a real message'.

Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2014, 01:26:23 PM
AFAIK Sweden is similar. You get the normal generous healthcare, education, extra money for kids etc etc, but if you in spite of that need tax money to live then you have to spend your own money first. Which makes sense I think.

Put that way, it does.  One of the flaws, I think, in the US social assistance programs is that we jump to straight welfare too quickly.  I think some sort of tapered program that kicks in earlier but hits more targeted areas would be better.  As you go lower on the income and wealth scale, you get more and broader benefits, with straight welfare reserved for the hardest off.

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 09, 2014, 01:24:18 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 12:49:17 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 09, 2014, 12:46:51 PM
I'd like to thank CC for paying his high taxes & thru the magic of periquation enabling me to have cheap day care for my kids.

It'd be nice if we could have cheap daycare here in BC too, but the principle is sound IMO. I don't pay CC level taxes, but one day I hope to :)

It's very, very expensive at the state level but imo, worth it.

It's also very hard to get in.

I do not agree with government provided day care.

There are many different potential models you can use for child care.  There is traditional day care, but there is also a parent staying home, or grandparents or extended family, or nannies, or day homes (where a family takes in a few extra children to look after).

Why subsidize only one of those choices, but not the others?

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 01:32:20 PM

Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2014, 01:26:23 PM
AFAIK Sweden is similar. You get the normal generous healthcare, education, extra money for kids etc etc, but if you in spite of that need tax money to live then you have to spend your own money first. Which makes sense I think.

Put that way, it does.  One of the flaws, I think, in the US social assistance programs is that we jump to straight welfare too quickly.  I think some sort of tapered program that kicks in earlier but hits more targeted areas would be better.  As you go lower on the income and wealth scale, you get more and broader benefits, with straight welfare reserved for the hardest off.

Agreed.  It makes no sense to have people with less disposable income if they take a job after paying for things like child care and transportation.   Canada has tried to address this problem with tax credits and tax exemptions so that the working poor pay no tax.  That is part of the solution but the problem is that the working poor make so little in wages that tax exemptions alone isnt the solution. 

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 12:34:03 PM
2) Many white working poor view assistance programs as racially motivated.  They see non-white people disproportionately benefit from them and believe it is because they are minorities, not because they are more likely to be poor.

[1] Which was a good description of most of my childhood, actually.

I think the racial element is perhaps stronger in the US than elsewhere.

But I think in general it's the old clash between a welfare system designed on contribution versus one on need. Which is difficult because the people who 'deserve' the support often need it less than the 'undeserving' who may not have worked, may have addiction problems, or be from a different social/ethnic/racial group. It's a very difficult issue though. I've no idea which I think is more right.

Also there is an element of middle class priggishness and trying to manage the poor which has been with us always. I think you can draw a direct line from temperance movements 'worrying' about the drinking poor in the 19th century to censoriousness about working class Brits in Mallorca or daring to spend some of their money on Sky (which, anyway, a good Guardian reader wouldn't want - except for Sky Atlantic, to watch the latest HBO series).

It always reminds me of that line from John Reid when he was Health Secretary that while increasing taxation on cigarettes may be good health policy it's also removing a genuine affordable pleasure from many of the poorest. My aunty in Liverpool died and was severely disabled by the end of her life. She was living in the same 1930s house her husband (unemployed since Ford shut down in the city) was born in and cigarettes were a pleasure for her. I've always felt queasy about saying the poor should be more virtuous and more middle-class in their enjoyments because I think that takes money.

It's that Wigan Pier bit. The reason the poor don't spend their money on cheaper and more nutritious cuts of meat that require a bit more cooking, or on brown bread is because they want something 'tasty': jam, white bread, sugar. Nowadays it's often the odd cheap holiday that you save up for, cigarettes and booze.

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2014, 01:36:28 PM
I do not agree with government provided day care.

That's okay, you don't have to :)

... but I guess you shouldn't move to Quebec, then.

QuoteThere are many different potential models you can use for child care.  There is traditional day care, but there is also a parent staying home, or grandparents or extended family, or nannies, or day homes (where a family takes in a few extra children to look after).

Why subsidize only one of those choices, but not the others?

I don't mind subsidizing the other models for childcare as well, though that might make it even more expensive.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 01:32:20 PMPut that way, it does.  One of the flaws, I think, in the US social assistance programs is that we jump to straight welfare too quickly.  I think some sort of tapered program that kicks in earlier but hits more targeted areas would be better.  As you go lower on the income and wealth scale, you get more and broader benefits, with straight welfare reserved for the hardest off.

This is something the current government have tried to do (roughly). They're trying to institute a 'universal credit' in place of various different welfare programmes that tapers with earnings and so on.

Unfortunately they've put the most self-righteous and least competent minister in charge of it. So in four years it's still only a pilot scheme and in those places has been an unmitigated disaster.

Personally I'm coming to the view that we may be better off abolishing lots of the welfare state that target specific people or are to promote specific forms of behaviour and just guarantee a basic minimum income. Maybe return to a Speenhamland system.

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2014, 01:36:28 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 09, 2014, 01:24:18 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 12:49:17 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 09, 2014, 12:46:51 PM
I'd like to thank CC for paying his high taxes & thru the magic of periquation enabling me to have cheap day care for my kids.

It'd be nice if we could have cheap daycare here in BC too, but the principle is sound IMO. I don't pay CC level taxes, but one day I hope to :)

It's very, very expensive at the state level but imo, worth it.

It's also very hard to get in.

I do not agree with government provided day care.

There are many different potential models you can use for child care.  There is traditional day care, but there is also a parent staying home, or grandparents or extended family, or nannies, or day homes (where a family takes in a few extra children to look after).

Why subsidize only one of those choices, but not the others?

Meh, not everyone uses the public school system either but we all pay for it because it provides a benefit to most.  The number of families who can take advantage of the alternatives you mentioned is considerably less than those who need to purchase daycare services.  Playing to that minority is, in my view, playing politics to a conservative base who want a return to the days when only one parent worked.  Some may make that choice but many more will not or cannot.  We shouldnt craft social policy to meet the needs of the few over the needs of the many.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 09, 2014, 01:50:14 PM
Unfortunately they've put the most self-righteous and least competent minister in charge of it. So in four years it's still only a pilot scheme and in those places has been an unmitigated disaster.

Yeah that is the problem.  Such a system needs to be run competantly.  Too much to ask?

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2014, 01:36:28 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 09, 2014, 01:24:18 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 12:49:17 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 09, 2014, 12:46:51 PM
I'd like to thank CC for paying his high taxes & thru the magic of periquation enabling me to have cheap day care for my kids.

It'd be nice if we could have cheap daycare here in BC too, but the principle is sound IMO. I don't pay CC level taxes, but one day I hope to :)

It's very, very expensive at the state level but imo, worth it.

It's also very hard to get in.

I do not agree with government provided day care.

There are many different potential models you can use for child care.  There is traditional day care, but there is also a parent staying home, or grandparents or extended family, or nannies, or day homes (where a family takes in a few extra children to look after).

Why subsidize only one of those choices, but not the others?

We also have day homes. Our system is complicated but we have

CPEs (No profit organisation that provide day care in installations)
Private daycare
Private at home daycare
Subsidize Private at home daycare

We faced a problem, couples weren't having enough children while also being totally politically unacceptable to give the impression of encouraging women to stay home & leave the workforce.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 01:53:48 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2014, 01:36:28 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 09, 2014, 01:24:18 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 12:49:17 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 09, 2014, 12:46:51 PM
I'd like to thank CC for paying his high taxes & thru the magic of periquation enabling me to have cheap day care for my kids.

It'd be nice if we could have cheap daycare here in BC too, but the principle is sound IMO. I don't pay CC level taxes, but one day I hope to :)

It's very, very expensive at the state level but imo, worth it.

It's also very hard to get in.

I do not agree with government provided day care.

There are many different potential models you can use for child care.  There is traditional day care, but there is also a parent staying home, or grandparents or extended family, or nannies, or day homes (where a family takes in a few extra children to look after).

Why subsidize only one of those choices, but not the others?

Meh, not everyone uses the public school system either but we all pay for it because it provides a benefit to most.  The number of families who can take advantage of the alternatives you mentioned is considerably less than those who need to purchase daycare services.  Playing to that minority is, in my view, playing politics to a conservative base who want a return to the days when only one parent worked.  Some may make that choice but many more will not or cannot.  We shouldnt craft social policy to meet the needs of the few over the needs of the many.

I very much doubt that formal day care is the majority.  In my experience most people rely on informal day homes, family and friends.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 11:04:29 AM
On top of that, where did this attitude that you need to sell all your valuables when you get poor come from?

It comes from the notion that you should spend your own money before you spend someone else's.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 02:14:54 PM

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 11:04:29 AM
On top of that, where did this attitude that you need to sell all your valuables when you get poor come from?

It comes from the notion that you should spend your own money before you spend someone else's.

Sure, but forcing people to sell goods for which they will get very little money.  That is just mean spirited.

Very little money for a 6 year old Bentz?

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 01:19:43 PM

Quote from: Malthus on July 09, 2014, 01:16:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 01:08:39 PM
I'm not sure that Darlena's story would be more than a curiosity piece if we weren't expect to think upon a general takeaway.

I'm pretty sure that the "takeaway" was something along the lines of 'a spell of poverty can potentially happen to you through bad choices or bad luck, even if you are not a member of the inderclass'. Not 'I am now just like the underclass - you can generalize from my (months?) of being poor, as to what living in the underclass is really like'.

You like to rub in your point that this sort of thing isn't "real" poverty. I suppose it isn't, if by "real poverty" you mean "now a member of the underclass". But it is also not meaningless.

Indeed.  It's a message to those of us who do not currently need a safety net that having one is a benefit to us, too.

Allowing us the freedom to make unwise financial choices?

At any rate, doesn't strike me as news that a safety net can help someone if they have overextended themselves. :huh:

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2014, 02:06:27 PM
I very much doubt that formal day care is the majority.  In my experience most people rely on informal day homes, family and friends.

Perhaps because formal daycare is prohibitively expensive for most?

Wtf is formal daycare? Little morning suits and shit?

Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2014, 02:47:49 PM
Wtf is formal daycare? Little morning suits and shit?

"Formal daycare" = an institution with formally trained daycare workers, looking after the kids in a facility designed for the purposes.

"Informal daycare" = leaving the kids with the lady down the street, who also looks after a few other kids; having the grandparents look after the kids; etc.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 01:13:14 PM

Quote from: Zanza on July 09, 2014, 01:04:32 PM
Our euroweenie social system would make you sell a Mercedes before you could get social security. You may own an "appropriate" car, but a 2003 Mercedes back in 2009 would probably be above that value limit.

So, you are supposed to drive an unreliable piece of shit just because you are poor?  Especially when you already own the car outright?

Isn't the reason for forcing someone to sell a Mercedes to prevent them from driving an unreliable piece of shit with insane upkeep costs?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 02:17:55 PM
Very little money for a 6 year old Bentz?

Compared to what was paid for it, certainly.  Why should someone in financial trouble be forced into a fire sale of personal goods.  To further punish them?

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 03:42:31 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 02:17:55 PM
Very little money for a 6 year old Bentz?

Compared to what was paid for it, certainly.  Why should someone in financial trouble be forced into a fire sale of personal goods.  To further punish them?

Forced? They don't have to take my money.

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2014, 01:36:28 PM
I do not agree with government provided day care.

There are many different potential models you can use for child care.  There is traditional day care, but there is also a parent staying home, or grandparents or extended family, or nannies, or day homes (where a family takes in a few extra children to look after).

Why subsidize only one of those choices, but not the others?

Maybe the government there has decided that day care is like education:  Something that can only be handled by state.  Given the paranoia surrounding the vulnerability of children right now, the thirst for accreditation and the fact that single-income households just aren't realistic for the vast majority of the population anymore, it's not that surprising a step.

And people consider the nuclear industry dangerous:

http://www.thelocal.se/20140611/day-care-rapist-charged-molesting-eight-kids

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 02:31:40 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2014, 02:06:27 PM
I very much doubt that formal day care is the majority.  In my experience most people rely on informal day homes, family and friends.

Perhaps because formal daycare is prohibitively expensive for most?

So why should the government be promoting the most expensive option then (well perhaps 2nd most expensive after nannies).

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2014, 04:10:46 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 02:31:40 PM

Quote from: Barrister on July 09, 2014, 02:06:27 PM
I very much doubt that formal day care is the majority.  In my experience most people rely on informal day homes, family and friends.

Perhaps because formal daycare is prohibitively expensive for most?

So why should the government be promoting the most expensive option then (well perhaps 2nd most expensive after nannies).

Government promoting?

More like government recognizing it is the only option for the majority of people. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 03:42:31 PM
Compared to what was paid for it, certainly.  Why should someone in financial trouble be forced into a fire sale of personal goods.  To further punish them?

I don't understand how the depreciation is relevant.  I would not be in favor of people holding on to their yachts either, even though there is presumably a significant difference between the prices of new and used yachts.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 04:21:48 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2014, 03:42:31 PM
Compared to what was paid for it, certainly.  Why should someone in financial trouble be forced into a fire sale of personal goods.  To further punish them?

I don't understand how the depreciation is relevant. 

Because people need cars for transportation.  Why would you force someone in financial distress to take a loss in a perfectly serviceable vehicle and then purchase another vehicle.  That sort of logic only works if you have a brother in law in the used car business.

How are they taking a loss?

Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2014, 04:41:34 PM
How are they taking a loss?

Used cars are not that liquid.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 02:17:55 PM
Very little money for a 6 year old Bentz?

Entry-level luxury cars like that typically lose 70% or more of their value in that time.  I have to estimate based on comparable models from 2008 since Kelly doesn't publish historical pricing, but that car was likely worth $14000 - $16000 at the time the woman was going through the financial rut.  Does it really make sense to make someone go through the trouble of selling that car and buying an "acceptable" one, particularly if the car they already own is paid off?  That process isn't free.

Quote from: The Brain on July 09, 2014, 03:44:23 PM
Forced? They don't have to take my money.

In which case they would need to have a fire sale of their possessions anyway.

Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 09, 2014, 04:54:37 PM
Entry-level luxury cars like that typically lose 70% or more of their value in that time.  I have to estimate based on comparable models from 2008 since Kelly doesn't publish historical pricing, but that car was likely worth $14000 - $16000 at the time the woman was going through the financial rut.  Does it really make sense to make someone go through the trouble of selling that car and buying an "acceptable" one, particularly if the car they already own is paid off?  That process isn't free.

Assuming she could have bought a basic transportation used car for 5 grand?  I suppose it's in the debateable range.  We also haven't discussed the public transportation option.

However you do seem to have conceded my original point in principle: that people receiving public assistance should spend their own money first.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 05:53:23 PM
However you do seem to have conceded my original point in principle: that people receiving public assistance should spend their own money first.

No, I don't think he has.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 05:56:14 PM
No, I don't think he has.

Then what's the point of bringing up the resale value of this particular car?  If they were allowed to have nice things it wouldn't matter if it the car would fetch 40 grand.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 05:59:26 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 05:56:14 PM
No, I don't think he has.

Then what's the point of bringing up the resale value of this particular car?  If they were allowed to have nice things it wouldn't matter if it the car would fetch 40 grand.

I think people should be allowed to have nice things.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 05:59:26 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 05:56:14 PM
No, I don't think he has.

Then what's the point of bringing up the resale value of this particular car?

To highlight that there isn't the liquidity in it that heartless douchebags like you that wipe their asses with the social contract think there is in your expectation that Everything Must Go! when one falls on hard times.

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 06:08:06 PM
I think people should be allowed to have nice things.

It's all well and good to side with corporations and the wealthy and bleat on and on about how it's nobody's business what they do with their money to dodge taxes costing this nation countless millions in lost revenue, but if you're busted ass broke then they're all up in everybody's business on how these people spend what few shekels they have.   The hypocrisy of conservatives is all about bullshit.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 06:14:28 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 06:08:06 PM
I think people should be allowed to have nice things.

It's all well and good to side with corporations and the wealthy and bleat on and on about how it's nobody's business what they do with their money to dodge taxes costing this nation countless millions in lost revenue, but if you're busted ass broke then they're all up in everybody's business on how these people spend what few shekels they have.   The hypocrisy of conservatives is all about bullshit.

Well it kind of makes sense if said poor people are simultaneously taking handouts that cost other people money.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 06:35:39 PM
Well it kind of makes sense if said poor people are simultaneously taking handouts that cost other people money.

Peanuts compared to corporate tax exemptions and shelters to hide wealth, and you know it.  Talk about handouts. 

But no, let's make sure the poors are even poorers before they're allowed to get help.  That'll do wonders.  "Handouts that cost other people money."  Hell of a social conscience you have there, Cunty McCapitalism.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 06:58:07 PM
Peanuts compared to corporate tax exemptions and shelters to hide wealth, and you know it.  Talk about handouts.

Have I ever said I'm a fan of that?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 06:58:07 PM
But no, let's make sure the poors are even poorers before they're allowed to get help.  That'll do wonders.

I'm not really sure where this is coming from or really what it even means.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 06:58:07 PM"Handouts that cost other people money."  Hell of a social conscience you have there, Cunty McCapitalism.

Well they do, which is why it shouldn't be surprising if someone gets upset if they are paying to support someone who spent their money frivolously. Their referring to "someone" in the previous sentence not the "they."

Besides, Seeds, you'd be wrong to say I don't think there should be a social safety net. Clearly even if it were the case that everyone poor was such as the result of poor choices (which is clearly not true for even the majority of those facing poverty), we'd still need something as our country wouldn't really be able to function if we just had them starving, dying or face some other sort of inhumane condition.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 06:10:31 PM
To highlight that there isn't the liquidity in it that heartless douchebags like you that wipe their asses with the social contract think there is in your expectation that Everything Must Go! when one falls on hard times.

Right, which isn't relevant if you subscribe to the unqualified position that people who get handouts can hold on to their nice things.

Pretty sure I already said that.

Yi, would you feel that a family who has fallen on hard times should sell their house and move into a rental before applying for aid?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 09, 2014, 06:14:28 PM

Quote from: Jacob on July 09, 2014, 06:08:06 PM
I think people should be allowed to have nice things.

It's all well and good to side with corporations and the wealthy and bleat on and on about how it's nobody's business what they do with their money to dodge taxes costing this nation countless millions in lost revenue, but if you're busted ass broke then they're all up in everybody's business on how these people spend what few shekels they have.   The hypocrisy of conservatives is all about bullshit.

I suppose it makes sense if you equate wealth with morality.

Quote from: merithyn on July 09, 2014, 07:54:38 PM
Yi, would you feel that a family who has fallen on hard times should sell their house and move into a rental before applying for aid?

If they're net ahead after paying rent?  Sure, why not?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 07:43:43 PM
Right, which isn't relevant if you subscribe to the unqualified position that people who get handouts can hold on to their nice things.

Pretty sure I already said that.

Honestly, I'm of the opinion that a family's shelter and transportation should be sacrosanct.  Barring fraud, families apply for assistance because their circumstances have become reduced.  Logically, penalizing them by further reducing their circumstances is more likely to demand more aid, not less.  To that end, you'd need a damned good reason to take shelter or transportation from a family receiving aid.

Too many people don't think this through.  You take a family's car, you send them to public transportation.  What happens if there's not enough public transportation coverage?  They take cabs.  Which they can't afford, so it goes back on the public dime.  It's easy to say "poor people shouldn't have cars" after you've just driven yours back from work, but speaking from experience, there's nowhere near enough infrastructure to just yank cars and expect adequate transportation.

Forcing to downgrade housing?  Have you guys ever been in HUD housing?  It ain't pretty.  I don't know what you think your tax dollars are paying for, but what they're really doing is lining the pockets of slumlords.  At best, you've got people paying out of pocket (well, social security checks) for essential repairs and needing to go back and claim more from SNAP to feed their families.  At worst, you've got people trying to tough it out in unlivable/hazardous conditions and needing more medical care in the end- and it gets better: thanks to the cap on medicare deductions from paychecks, increases hit the lower-income taxpayers harder.   That domino effect is a bitch: borderline becomes aid recipient, lower-middle becomes borderline, another round of "wealth redistribution" hits, lather, rinse, repeat.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 09, 2014, 08:17:10 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 07:43:43 PM
Right, which isn't relevant if you subscribe to the unqualified position that people who get handouts can hold on to their nice things.

Pretty sure I already said that.

Honestly, I'm of the opinion that a family's shelter and transportation should be sacrosanct.  Barring fraud, families apply for assistance because their circumstances have become reduced.  Logically, penalizing them by further reducing their circumstances is more likely to demand more aid, not less.  To that end, you'd need a damned good reason to take shelter or transportation from a family receiving aid.

Too many people don't think this through.  You take a family's car, you send them to public transportation.  What happens if there's not enough public transportation coverage?  They take cabs.  Which they can't afford, so it goes back on the public dime.  It's easy to say "poor people shouldn't have cars" after you've just driven yours back from work, but speaking from experience, there's nowhere near enough infrastructure to just yank cars and expect adequate transportation.

Forcing to downgrade housing?  Have you guys ever been in HUD housing?  It ain't pretty.  I don't know what you think your tax dollars are paying for, but what they're really doing is lining the pockets of slumlords.  At best, you've got people paying out of pocket (well, social security checks) for essential repairs and needing to go back and claim more from SNAP to feed their families.  At worst, you've got people trying to tough it out in unlivable/hazardous conditions and needing more medical care in the end- and it gets better: thanks to the cap on medicare deductions from paychecks, increases hit the lower-income taxpayers harder.   That domino effect is a bitch: borderline becomes aid recipient, lower-middle becomes borderline, another round of "wealth redistribution" hits, lather, rinse, repeat.

Well it's their own goddamn fault anyway.

Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 09, 2014, 08:17:10 PM
Honestly, I'm of the opinion that a family's shelter and transportation should be sacrosanct.

Do you mean the shelter they currently inhabit, or some shelter?  The transportation they currently use, or some transportation?

I don't think it's fair to the guy living within his means in a shitty little efficiency to hand over free money to a family living in a mansion and driving to pick up their food stamps in a Rolls.

Quote from: sbr on July 09, 2014, 08:27:37 PM
Well it's their own goddamn fault anyway.

Pah! We all have a right to free, lovely housing and a car.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2014, 07:57:16 PM
I suppose it makes sense if you equate wealth with morality.

But it's always "handouts" when it comes to The Takers, which is not only prejudicial but incorrect.

Forcing someone to sell their car or house to receive benefits is wrong in just about every circumstance.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 08:28:59 PM
Do you mean the shelter they currently inhabit, or some shelter?  The transportation they currently use, or some transportation?

I don't think it's fair to the guy living within his means in a shitty little efficiency to hand over free money to a family living in a mansion and driving to pick up their food stamps in a Rolls.

And where do you draw the line?  You expect to cram the family with 4 kids into a 1 or 2-bed apartment and somehow you don't expect to pay for the problems down the line?  The single guy in the shitty efficiency could live pretty large on the amount of money it costs a single mom to struggle raising two kids.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 08:39:05 PM

Quote from: sbr on July 09, 2014, 08:27:37 PM
Well it's their own goddamn fault anyway.

Pah! We all have a right to free, lovely housing and a car.

I'm not sure anyone outside of Ide would claim that, but where is the cut off and who decides?

Due to a normal slow time and the project I am on going sideways I have not worked since last Wednesday and it isn't looking like I will work this week.  Even though I am employed I am eligible to claim unemployment and I will do so.  If something weird were to happen and my "layoff" were to continue longer and I was eligible for other aid, including food stamps, I would most likely take it.  Should I have to sell the truck I bought in February first, or the home bought 10 years ago and is underwater?. 

I have worked and paid taxes for 25 years and I would have no problem taking something I was eligible for even though at the end of the year my income will still be well above average.

Take anything not nailed down. :yes:

Quote from: sbr on July 09, 2014, 08:56:37 PM
I'm not sure anyone outside of Ide would claim that, but where is the cut off and who decides?

I'd assume our lawmakers?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 08:28:59 PM

Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 09, 2014, 08:17:10 PM
Honestly, I'm of the opinion that a family's shelter and transportation should be sacrosanct.

Do you mean the shelter they currently inhabit, or some shelter?  The transportation they currently use, or some transportation?

I don't think it's fair to the guy living within his means in a shitty little efficiency to hand over free money to a family living in a mansion and driving to pick up their food stamps in a Rolls.

Do you believe it's ever fair to give away "free money"?

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 09:02:16 PM
I'd assume our lawmakers?

The same ones that decided on a regressive system for medicare contributions?  Or the scaling for the Earned Income Tax Credit?  Or for a more current example, the ones that came up with the scales for the tax credit towards purchasing health insurance?

Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 09, 2014, 08:56:08 PM
And where do you draw the line?

Somewhere around a 6 year old entry level Mercedes.

Which, in my mind, is infinitely more sensible than not drawing one at all.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2014, 09:03:35 PM
Do you believe it's ever fair to give away "free money"?

I've already answered this; several times in fact.  You didn't pay attention those times and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't this time either.

If I had a 6 year old luxury car that was worth $14-16K in 2008 dollars, and was in a bad financial situation, I think one of my first thoughts would be to sell the damn think and buy a different used car in the $3-4K range.  Even after taxes and licenses, I'd end up with at least $9000 I could use to cover other expenses.

And in 2008, $9000 could buy a pretty decent used car, even in you had a couple of kids to haul around.

Btw, maybe I was off put the fact that she noted her affluent suburb was a "white" one.

Well that and "I just wasn't sure I wanted to do that much work."

Cars are different in America. However, the idea that you couldn't have effectively downsized to a much cheaper, more manageable car is bullshit. Kompressors are pretty reliable, and retain high resale value.

But her story is not atypical. I don't have any pity, but I have some sympathy.

But, whatever. I'ma judge her ass, because she lives in a commie pinko bubble. Those assholes are infuriating.

And I'm not kidding. Fuck her. She don't know broke.

Selling the house was smart, though. Smarter still, DON'T FUCKING BUY A HOUSE WHEN YOU'RE PREGNANT WITH YOUR BOYFRIEND, DUMBASS.

Houses tie your ass down, and all that fucking cocaine you did in college fucks up your baby-making machinery but good. And who's going to buy the cow when they're getting the milk for free?

One thing I don't understand.  So a perfect financial storm happened to her.  She became pregnant with twins, they bought a house, then the housing market crashed, her husband became unemployed.

Maybe I missed it, but what happened to her job?  She quit to become a stay home mother? 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 09, 2014, 09:32:56 PM
One thing I don't understand.  So a perfect financial storm happened to her.  She became pregnant with twins, they bought a house, then the housing market crashed, her husband became unemployed.

Maybe I missed it, but what happened to her job?  She quit to become a stay home mother?

Nah, she kept her shitty job. But it was, you know, shitty.

Quote from: Scipio on July 09, 2014, 09:33:46 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 09, 2014, 09:32:56 PM
One thing I don't understand.  So a perfect financial storm happened to her.  She became pregnant with twins, they bought a house, then the housing market crashed, her husband became unemployed.

Maybe I missed it, but what happened to her job?  She quit to become a stay home mother?

Nah, she kept her shitty job. But it was, you know, shitty.

What's weird was that until that 25k part, she had said that she was constantly getting promoted and was "succeeding" with regards to her career. She grew up in an white affluent neighborhood and considered that succeeding?  That's why I feel like something is missing.

Quote from: garbon on July 09, 2014, 09:39:32 PM


What's weird was that until that 25k part, she had said that she was constantly getting promoted and was "succeeding" with regards to her career. She grew up in an white affluent neighborhood and considered that succeeding?  That's why I feel like something is missing.

My thoughts as well.  My guess is that she switched to a job with fewer hours and lower pay when she became pregnant.  Then everything else happened. 

It's not totally clear what happens to her job.  25K for a local TV producer in Boston sounds impossibly low.

The main thing I get from this story is that we all need much larger financial buffers than what we probably realise. 

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 09:08:21 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 09, 2014, 09:03:35 PM
Do you believe it's ever fair to give away "free money"?

I've already answered this; several times in fact.  You didn't pay attention those times and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't this time either.

There are 63 threads where the phrase "free money" shows up.  I haven't found the ones you are talking about.  I did ask you in 2012 what "Free money" is, but you didn't answer it.  However, something I did find was that I was just as hilarious and incisive in 2012 as I am now, which is not bad.  To be consistently that clever and funny over a period of years is not something to laugh at.  Wait, maybe it is. :huh:

Also I found Hans old quote on the social contract

QuoteFuck the social contract, I didn't sign on to having millions of worthless pieces of shit demanding handouts while contributing no effort themselves.  Why should those who work hard, save money for the future, and take responsibility for themselves be required to bail out all the worthless layabouts who blow all their money and then some ob big-screen TVs and XBOX 360's and then want a handout because working would distract from their play time.

Fuck em all.  There is nothing more antisocial than the "social contract", which rewards bad behavior and punishes responsibility.  This is why the poor shouldn't be allowed to vote: they end up voting to rob the public until eventually society collapses under their irresponsibility.

To be fair, Hans is a fascist scum.  Or whatever word you should use instead of fascist to avoid being accused of throwing out empty inflammatory labels.

Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2014, 12:12:39 AM
To be fair, Hans is a fascist scum.  Or whatever word you should use instead of fascist to avoid being accused of throwing out empty inflammatory labels.

I think his opinions are well represented in the conservative movement though the politicians tend to be a bit more diplomatic.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 09:45:21 PM
It's not totally clear what happens to her job.  25K for a local TV producer in Boston sounds impossibly low.

Sounds believable to me for a local TV producer in London. Lots of people want to work in media. They get shitty deals because of it, in the hope that one day they'll break out.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 11:52:33 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 09:45:21 PM
It's not totally clear what happens to her job.  25K for a local TV producer in Boston sounds impossibly low.

Sounds believable to me for a local TV producer in London. Lots of people want to work in media. They get shitty deals because of it, in the hope that one day they'll break out.

Doesn't sound like "succeeding" though.

Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2014, 12:12:39 AM
To be fair, Hans is a fascist scum.  Or whatever word you should use instead of fascist to avoid being accused of throwing out empty inflammatory labels.

Do me next!!  What am I??

Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 11:53:50 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 11:52:33 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2014, 09:45:21 PM
It's not totally clear what happens to her job.  25K for a local TV producer in Boston sounds impossibly low.

Sounds believable to me for a local TV producer in London. Lots of people want to work in media. They get shitty deals because of it, in the hope that one day they'll break out.

Doesn't sound like "succeeding" though.

Reminds me of the joke about the man with the carnival whose job it was to clean up the smelly bucketloads of elephant dung. A passerby, who saw him hip-deep in the excrement, asked, "My good man, how can you put up with such demeaning conditions? Haven't you ever thought about another line of work?" To which the carnival worker replied, "What—and give up show business?"

Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 11:53:50 AM
Doesn't sound like "succeeding" though.

You're succeeding in getting paying work in that industry and building a reputation. That is success necessary to get the ultimate success: a secure well-paid media job.

I know people who are on the constant life-rigmarole of decent paid contract jobs at the BBC (the BBC almost never hire people permanently because they don't want new people in the pension scheme, at most you get 2 years at a time) to incredibly low-paid deals at independent production companies selling their wares to the odd internet start-up. They're succeeding in that they're getting paid work, which thousands of interns who want in don't, and they're building a profile. But it seems to take a while to be financially successful.

Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2014, 11:55:21 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2014, 12:12:39 AM
To be fair, Hans is a fascist scum.  Or whatever word you should use instead of fascist to avoid being accused of throwing out empty inflammatory labels.

Do me next!!  What am I??

You're alright in my book. :)

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 11:59:40 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 11:53:50 AM
Doesn't sound like "succeeding" though.

You're succeeding in getting paying work in that industry and building a reputation. That is success necessary to get the ultimate success: a secure well-paid media job.

I know people who are on the constant life-rigmarole of decent paid contract jobs at the BBC (the BBC almost never hire people permanently because they don't want new people in the pension scheme, at most you get 2 years at a time) to incredibly low-paid deals at independent production companies selling their wares to the odd internet start-up. They're succeeding in that they're getting paid work, which thousands of interns who want in don't, and they're building a profile. But it seems to take a while to be financially successful.

Same here.  Media jobs are not what they used to be as the industry can no longer afford the pay scales of yesteryear.  Not with advertising dollars drying up and going to other platforms.  Further, the CBC, our state broadcaster, the place to be for safe secure media employment, is shedding thousands of jobs and will be a shell of its former self within the next five years.

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2014, 12:05:15 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 11:59:40 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 11:53:50 AM
Doesn't sound like "succeeding" though.

You're succeeding in getting paying work in that industry and building a reputation. That is success necessary to get the ultimate success: a secure well-paid media job.

I know people who are on the constant life-rigmarole of decent paid contract jobs at the BBC (the BBC almost never hire people permanently because they don't want new people in the pension scheme, at most you get 2 years at a time) to incredibly low-paid deals at independent production companies selling their wares to the odd internet start-up. They're succeeding in that they're getting paid work, which thousands of interns who want in don't, and they're building a profile. But it seems to take a while to be financially successful.

Same here.  Media jobs are not what they used to be as the industry can no longer afford the pay scales of yesteryear.  Not with advertising dollars drying up and going to other platforms.  Further, the CBC, our state broadcaster, the place to be for safe secure media employment, is shedding thousands of jobs and will be a shell of its former self within the next five years.

Unless Canadians do the right thing & elect a Liberal government in 2015.

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 10, 2014, 12:06:29 PM
Unless Canadians do the right thing & elect a Liberal government in 2015.

How will that help?  The Liberals will create do-nothing jobs at the CBC to keep people employed? :hmm:

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2014, 12:05:15 PM
Same here.  Media jobs are not what they used to be as the industry can no longer afford the pay scales of yesteryear.  Not with advertising dollars drying up and going to other platforms.  Further, the CBC, our state broadcaster, the place to be for safe secure media employment, is shedding thousands of jobs and will be a shell of its former self within the next five years.

The BBC is doing worse than shedding jobs: it's relocating people to Manchester.

On a dark Hampstead night you can sometimes hear the plaintive wails of pure horror emitting from the well-appointed homes of BBC executives and producers.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 10, 2014, 11:48:49 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2014, 12:12:39 AM
To be fair, Hans is a fascist scum.  Or whatever word you should use instead of fascist to avoid being accused of throwing out empty inflammatory labels.

I think his opinions are well represented in the conservative movement though the politicians tend to be a bit more diplomatic.

I'm not saying that a lot of "conservatives" in general are not fascist scum.

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 10, 2014, 12:06:29 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2014, 12:05:15 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 11:59:40 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 11:53:50 AM
Doesn't sound like "succeeding" though.

You're succeeding in getting paying work in that industry and building a reputation. That is success necessary to get the ultimate success: a secure well-paid media job.

I know people who are on the constant life-rigmarole of decent paid contract jobs at the BBC (the BBC almost never hire people permanently because they don't want new people in the pension scheme, at most you get 2 years at a time) to incredibly low-paid deals at independent production companies selling their wares to the odd internet start-up. They're succeeding in that they're getting paid work, which thousands of interns who want in don't, and they're building a profile. But it seems to take a while to be financially successful.

Same here.  Media jobs are not what they used to be as the industry can no longer afford the pay scales of yesteryear.  Not with advertising dollars drying up and going to other platforms.  Further, the CBC, our state broadcaster, the place to be for safe secure media employment, is shedding thousands of jobs and will be a shell of its former self within the next five years.

Unless Canadians do the right thing & elect a Liberal government in 2015.

I doubt any political party will have an interest in pumping money into a failed media platform. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 11:59:40 AM

Quote from: garbon on July 10, 2014, 11:53:50 AM
Doesn't sound like "succeeding" though.

You're succeeding in getting paying work in that industry and building a reputation.

I don't think that's what she was saying and again by no means would someone from an affluent suburb talk about 25k as "I moved from market to market, always achieving a better title, a better salary. Succeeding."

Well I suppose they could but I'd say their worldview was odd.

Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2014, 12:08:09 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 10, 2014, 12:06:29 PM
Unless Canadians do the right thing & elect a Liberal government in 2015.

How will that help?  The Liberals will create do-nothing jobs at the CBC to keep people employed? :hmm:

Restore it's funding to pre-conservative levels.

Some cut jobs are journos, yes but some others are content providers.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 12:09:16 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on July 10, 2014, 12:05:15 PM
Same here.  Media jobs are not what they used to be as the industry can no longer afford the pay scales of yesteryear.  Not with advertising dollars drying up and going to other platforms.  Further, the CBC, our state broadcaster, the place to be for safe secure media employment, is shedding thousands of jobs and will be a shell of its former self within the next five years.

The BBC is doing worse than shedding jobs: it's relocating people to Manchester.

On a dark Hampstead night you can sometimes hear the plaintive wails of pure horror emitting from the well-appointed homes of BBC executives and producers.

:lol:

@GF I see.  My question to you wasn't sarcasm, I genuinely wondered if they had promised to alleviate that and if so, how.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2014, 11:52:33 AM
Sounds believable to me for a local TV producer in London. Lots of people want to work in media. They get shitty deals because of it, in the hope that one day they'll break out.

Even if we accept that she took a 25K gofer job in Boston after several years of experience (several years of succeeding), that means her husband had to be making 100K as a copy editor at the Hartford Courant.  No chance.

I have a buddy who's a producer for ABC and he makes very nice bank.  25K is production assistant money, not producer money.

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 10, 2014, 01:31:47 PM

Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2014, 12:08:09 PM

Quote from: Grey Fox on July 10, 2014, 12:06:29 PM
Unless Canadians do the right thing & elect a Liberal government in 2015.

How will that help?  The Liberals will create do-nothing jobs at the CBC to keep people employed? :hmm:

Restore it's funding to pre-conservative levels.

Some cut jobs are journos, yes but some others are content providers.

They lost the NHL.  What choice did they have?  Hockey Night in Canada was the only thing on the CBC that a lot of people actually liked.

The CBC can never be like the BBC.

Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2014, 12:17:00 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 10, 2014, 11:48:49 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2014, 12:12:39 AM
To be fair, Hans is a fascist scum.  Or whatever word you should use instead of fascist to avoid being accused of throwing out empty inflammatory labels.

I think his opinions are well represented in the conservative movement though the politicians tend to be a bit more diplomatic.

I'm not saying that a lot of "conservatives" in general are not fascist scum.

I'm not sure it's fair to call it "fascist".  The idea that the poor will just vote to give themselves free money is an idea with a lot of currency in both conservative and libertarian thought.  Most don't go out and say the poor shouldn't be able to vote (though some have, arguing for a property requirement to vote), but Tamas often argues that way, Yi goes on and on about free money, and Romney's statements about the "47 percent".

Quote from: derspiess on July 10, 2014, 11:55:21 AM

Quote from: DGuller on July 10, 2014, 12:12:39 AM
To be fair, Hans is a fascist scum.  Or whatever word you should use instead of fascist to avoid being accused of throwing out empty inflammatory labels.

Do me next!!  What am I??

You're as empty inflammatory label as they come.  :mad:

It's a bad time for working in the media; I haven't been able to live off exclusively TV/film gigs since 2011, and I have been taking gigs in publishing and education to round out my income. Then again, Spain's been in the gutter, so it may not be representative.

But truth is that media have been in a race to the bottom for a decade now. It's no longer possible to monetize content in the same way it was done before. It's not only advertising money, people have so many windows to get entertainment from nowadays, that it's turned into a buyer's market: people aren't willing to spend as much as they did. All in all, it's started a downward cost-cutting spiral that results in less jobs and less pay.

Quote from: celedhring on July 11, 2014, 05:55:39 AM
It's a bad time for working in the media; I haven't been able to live off exclusively TV/film gigs since 2011, and I have been taking gigs in publishing and education to round out my income. Then again, Spain's been in the gutter, so it may not be representative.

But truth is that media have been in a race to the bottom for a decade now. It's no longer possible to monetize content in the same way it was done before. It's not only advertising money, people have so many windows to get entertainment from nowadays, that it's turned into a buyer's market: people aren't willing to spend as much as they did. All in all, it's started a downward cost-cutting spiral that results in less jobs and less pay.

Add to that a steady influx of young people who wants nothing but "to work in media" and you have a really shitty employment situation.
Norway had an unnaturally high number of small, local newspapers, but the death of print media has been like the Black Scourge 2.0 on them.

I don't envy anyone working exclusively in media. I get by because I write for companies outside of the typical media business. Glad I didn't become a journo.

Aye, there's many more young'uns coming off uni and film schools that want to work in the media than the industry can support. I suppose expectations will adjust over time and people will go back to wanting to be lawyers.

Many colleagues are taking now jobs in local and regional media that are the classic underpaid jobs you take when you're fresh off school. These companies now have somebody with buckets of experience accepting a McDonald's salary, just so he can stay in the industry.

Quote from: Caliga on July 10, 2014, 01:33:36 PM
@GF I see.  My question to you wasn't sarcasm, I genuinely wondered if they had promised to alleviate that and if so, how.

Didn't see it has sarcasm  ;)

@Neil That's a purly english side problem tho. SRC is quality content provider for French Canadian across Canada.

Has your cost of living gone down in Espanaland?

Our "find a home overseas" tv shows regularly show beautiful big places to live there for five or six hundred dollars a month. I doubt it was that cheap before the eurocrisis.