The poor need to get better at being poor

[brooklyngirl]

About food, and being able to carry it from the store... in my old neighborhood in Brooklyn, most people didn''t have cars, and many were old ladies, who lived on their own, and they had no problem walking 10, even 15 blocks to get groceries. They all used carts similar to these. I haven''t seen them around outside of NYC to be honest, but they are just so convenient for everything!

http://www.foldingcartstore.com/superswivelerfoldingcart.aspx

 

[JulieN]

Date: 1/27/2009 11:45:35 PM
Author: whitetulips
I think that food is the biggest issue here and I would love to know where somebody can find chicken for $1/lb on sale! The post about feeding six people roasted chicken sandwiches for $10 is absolutely insane to me. It takes more than just flour and water to make bread and maybe it's because I live in Chicago, but there is no way I think I could even feed my fiance and I roasted chicken sandwiches for $10. I second the poster who said that a lot of times people don't have cars to load a lot of groceries in at once or who don't live near an inexpensive grocery store. I never realized how much I took my car for granted until I sold it to move here. I live 1/2 a block from whole foods but 7 blocks from a regular grocery store. 7 blocks may not seem like much but fill one grocery basket with milk and cereal and possibly food for dinner and then try to walk with it in -7 degree weather for 7 blocks. It's hard and it is impossible to shop in bulk, which is where the money saving factor comes in. The only time that my fiance and I tried to shop for an entire week's worth of groceries to save money we ended up having to take a cab home because we couldn't carry all of the groceries. There went the savings we thought we were getting.

Whole fryer chicken is regularly $.69/lb on sale in the national supermarket chains (not old stew hens at the corner carniceria) in the most expensive part of LA (and food is very, very expensive here.) It's not often, but it is regular...that is what a freezer is for. Even fryer parts sometimes go for $.99/lb...not often, though. Realistically, the *average* family of 6 (not a family of 6 of 4 teenaged boys who play football) would need about 4 lbs of whole chicken (yields a little more than 3 lbs of meat, so that's more than half a lb of meat/person, which is *two* servings of meat.)

Flour, water, salt, and yeast (and in the old days...you couldn't buy yeast!) are the only components of basic bread. For all you aspiring home bakers, if you haven't seen the no-knead bread recipe yet (it's the most famous bread recipe ever, I think.) A pound of flour is somewhere between $.50 and $1, depending on if you buy generic or brand-name flour. So, let's say $2 for 2# loaf of home-made bread. (The sale prices in my local Safeway this week were $2.50 for 1.5# Oroweat sliced bread ($1.66/lb) and $.99 for 0.5# Safeway Artisan baguette ($2/lb.))

You think it's insane to feed you and your fiance (2 people) chicken sandwiches for $10, which is $5/person. (Rereading your post, you might have thought I am insane

. Not really, I'm just someone who is really into food. I know how to eat cheaply to save up for expensive food.) Did you realize that that is the issue in the OP, that one Subway sandwich is $5, and $30/6 people is $5/person?

 

[LaraOnline]

I think this is an interesting thread.
One thing that jumped out at me was the idea that if you want to not be poor, you should expect to work more than 40hours a week.
In comparison with Australia, US people are VERY hardworking, it seems. Most people here - poorer or less well paid people, especially - have an expectation that 40hours is at the upper most maximum of ongoing labour hours a week...
Richer or better paid people tend to have jobs where very long hours (50-70 hours) are expected, and this is regularly bemoaned as an 'issue' in the local newspapers.
The 'work-life balance' is a major preoccupation of 'current affairs' media, unions, feminist groups and all manner of other lobby groups, including health officials.

 

[sklingem]

Date: 1/27/2009 5:38:21 PM
Author: neatfreak
I agree with you in theory...but have you ever been to a grocery store in a poor neighborhood? Often there isn''t even a grocery store at all, they are dealing with convenience stores if they don''t have a car or can''t take public transit to a store sometimes far away. And if there is a grocery store the prices are often insane and the quality of the products pretty bad. Grocery stores are usually in nice and somewhat affluent (at least comparably) neighborhoods, however fast food joints are often located very easily in poor neighborhoods. Not saying it''s right, but at least a part of it is accessibility for some families.


Not defending everyone here, I completely agree with you that most people complaining are people who should be able to cook at home and save money. But as always there is a flip side to every coin for some people...it just isn''t as clear cut as everyone should/can cook fresh meals at home easily.


And as to the cell phones, many poor people ONLY have cell phones, these days it''s often cheaper than a landline and the prepaid phones don''t require a credit check/good credit which often is required for a land line.

Thank you neatfreak for some information that is often overlooked - the lack of access that people in poor communities have to grocery stores with quality food and affordable prices, transportation, health care etc. At the same time is is certainly true that there is a culture of "eating out of the box" as well as time constraints for people who work 2 or 3 jobs. Unfortunately we are producing a generation that is unable/unwilling to cook, which adds to the problem. So - as usual - the problems are deeply rooted and complex ... starting with poverty itself! But that is another thread I guess.
E.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

There are many many families in urban areas who survive on very little each month. My step sister is a SAHM of 3 with a husband who makes $40,000/year in a city in NH (with a Boston cost-of-living). They bring home around $500/week. She''s a SAHM because child care is too expensive and it''s more economical for them. They rent an apartment/condo and are hoping to buy a house this year. They don''t have cell phones, they have 1 land line without long distance. They have the basic of basic cable packages and they get their internet from a neighbor with an unsecured wireless network. They have 2 cars, but both are older and they limit their driving to just the essentials. They don''t eat out regularly, they cook at home (they might get a pizza on Friday night). By living frugally, they can afford to put money into savings each month to save for a house.

What''s amazing in this situation is my sister feeds a family of 5 on organic groceries bought entirely from Whole Foods... They lead a much simpler life than FI and I do. Our mortgage is twice what their rent is and we make 3 or 4 times as much as they do. They can save whereas we live check to check. I can''t leave a WF without dropping $50, and that''s on a good day! It''s all about priorities...

 

[vespergirl]

Thanks everyone for responding to my posts ... I really enjoyed reading everyone''s feedback. There are a couple of points that I wanted to respond to from first-hand knowledge. I grew up in NYC, then lived in Boston, and now live in the DC area, so I have spent nearly all of my life in urban neighborhoods. When I lived in Boston, I lived in Roxbury for several years, which is the most "dangerous" and poorest part of the inner-city in that area. I agree that there were less major grocery stoes, but I was able to do most of my shopping at the bodega-type stores, and there are always small Aisan groceries where one can find fruits and veggies. Some stores didn''t have much fresh produce, but I could always find pasta, tomato sauce, rice, beans, bread, canned and frozen fruits and vegetables, and peanut butter. You could also find canned tuna and spam. Surely it''s not Whole Foods, but it''s not just bags of chips and candy either. When my grandparents immigrated here with their small children, they spent their whole lives in NYC, and neer learned to drive. They were able to walk to the grocery store every couple of days to get some groceries into their early 90s. It''s just more of the European way of shopping - every 2 or 3 days, instead of once a week or month buying a ton of food.

One poster mentioned that the starchy dishes I mentioned weren''t as nutritionally diverse and what the upper-classes are used to eating, but most poor people in the world live on rice, corn and beans. You can get your protein from beans and peanut butter very inexpensively. It actually really annoys me to see so many bans on peanut butter in schools these days - to me, it''s discrimination against the poor, because that''s the only affordable, nutrition protein that many can afford to pack for their child''s lunch - most poor people can''t afford pricy lunchmeat.

I also wanted to post that I now live in an upper-middle class suburb of DC, but I do indeed make a roast chicken dinner for my family of 3 for $10, and we have leftovers.

I don''t think that not knowing how to cook, clip coupons or bargain shop are excuses. There are free public libraries all over this country - go take out a cookbook.

It astonishes me that all of my American-born friends of my generation (I''m 32) don''t know how to cook, and neither do their mothers. If they do "cook," it''s processed convenience foods that are WAY more expensive than buying simple ingredients. My only friends who do know how to cook are either immigrants or first-generation Americans like myself. I agree that many people may not be used to living on a budget, but that''s why I titled this thread the way I did - people need to learn to adjust to their new circumstances by changing their habits.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 1/28/2009 8:10:36 AM
Author: LaraOnline
I think this is an interesting thread.
One thing that jumped out at me was the idea that if you want to not be poor, you should expect to work more than 40hours a week.
In comparison with Australia, US people are VERY hardworking, it seems. Most people here - poorer or less well paid people, especially - have an expectation that 40hours is at the upper most maximum of ongoing labour hours a week...
Richer or better paid people tend to have jobs where very long hours (50-70 hours) are expected, and this is regularly bemoaned as an ''issue'' in the local newspapers.
The ''work-life balance'' is a major preoccupation of ''current affairs'' media, unions, feminist groups and all manner of other lobby groups, including health officials.

I think I was the only one who mentioned working more than one full-time job, so I thought I''d clarify. You don''t have to work more than 40 hours to not be poor--heck, many of us probably know some people who do quite well on less than 40 hours. You work as hard as you need to to keep your head above water (food, shelter, water). If that is more than 40 hours a week, it''s more than 40 hours a week. Once the basic needs are taken care of, then a person can think about work/life balance.

 

[whitetulips]

That grocery cart thing is cool and would be nice to have. Sometimes though, they don''t clear the sidewalks here after a snowstorm (the city cut back spending on plowing and street clearing) and that would also be an issue; however, it would only be an issue in bad snowy times.

I realize that it may sound like I was complaining about my current situation but I wasn''t. I was just saying that I''ve lived in areas that make it much easier to live for less money. I do cook- everyday, and I do make my own bread. We started making bread as a way to save money because a loaf of bread from whole foods is over $4 and gone in two days. It just isn''t worth it.

I have also lived in areas where meat goes on sale for $.69 a pound- but it doesn''t happen here. The Jewel occasionally runs a good sale on chicken and we do stock up (I use my freezer too!) but that sale is still around $1.99/lb. It is good to know that some people could feed a family a proper meal with all of the nutritional components for around $10- and I believe it can be done. . . my point was that it is harder in some areas that others. Someone commented about families not having time to go to the store frequently if they are working two jobs and this is precisely what I was getting at when I said that there is no way to buy groceries in bulk out here without a car, which requires multiple trips to the store and even more time.

I don''t doubt for a second that our country needs to learn how to better manage money and cook rather than going out. I also agree that many, many people live above their means.

Oh and I just wanted to add that just because people survive on rice, corn, and beans doesn''t mean that they are living a healthy life. A diet that consists mainly of those three ingredients is going to compromise a person''s health! Corn is one of the unhealthiest veggies out there and that diet has no fruit! Yes, beans offer a protein source but that is honestly the only ''healthy'' seeming part of the diet.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/28/2009 1:02:40 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 1/28/2009 8:10:36 AM
Author: LaraOnline
I think this is an interesting thread.
One thing that jumped out at me was the idea that if you want to not be poor, you should expect to work more than 40hours a week.
In comparison with Australia, US people are VERY hardworking, it seems. Most people here - poorer or less well paid people, especially - have an expectation that 40hours is at the upper most maximum of ongoing labour hours a week...
Richer or better paid people tend to have jobs where very long hours (50-70 hours) are expected, and this is regularly bemoaned as an ''issue'' in the local newspapers.
The ''work-life balance'' is a major preoccupation of ''current affairs'' media, unions, feminist groups and all manner of other lobby groups, including health officials.

I think I was the only one who mentioned working more than one full-time job, so I thought I''d clarify. You don''t have to work more than 40 hours to not be poor--heck, many of us probably know some people who do quite well on less than 40 hours. You work as hard as you need to to keep your head above water (food, shelter, water). If that is more than 40 hours a week, it''s more than 40 hours a week. Once the basic needs are taken care of, then a person can think about work/life balance.

Can you explain how this would work for a single parent?

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 1/28/2009 1:19:59 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/28/2009 1:02:40 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 1/28/2009 8:10:36 AM
Author: LaraOnline
I think this is an interesting thread.
One thing that jumped out at me was the idea that if you want to not be poor, you should expect to work more than 40hours a week.
In comparison with Australia, US people are VERY hardworking, it seems. Most people here - poorer or less well paid people, especially - have an expectation that 40hours is at the upper most maximum of ongoing labour hours a week...
Richer or better paid people tend to have jobs where very long hours (50-70 hours) are expected, and this is regularly bemoaned as an ''issue'' in the local newspapers.
The ''work-life balance'' is a major preoccupation of ''current affairs'' media, unions, feminist groups and all manner of other lobby groups, including health officials.

I think I was the only one who mentioned working more than one full-time job, so I thought I''d clarify. You don''t have to work more than 40 hours to not be poor--heck, many of us probably know some people who do quite well on less than 40 hours. You work as hard as you need to to keep your head above water (food, shelter, water). If that is more than 40 hours a week, it''s more than 40 hours a week. Once the basic needs are taken care of, then a person can think about work/life balance.

Can you explain how this would work for a single parent?

Work at a daycare

Growing up my bus driver would take her kids on the bus, she had a second job cleaning homes and her kids came with her. She was able to save for a home without putting her kids in daycare.

I have a friend who is a single parent with 3 kids who I think is amazing--she was married young, her husband was abusive and she left him with no education and no help. She struggled to find a job where she could work from home (she made less than $20K/year)--she could stretch a dollar better than anybody I''ve ever seen. She found a friend who was in a similar situation and they traded babysitting at night so they could both go to school. She just finished her nursing degree and for the first time in her life feels that she doesn''t have to buget every cent. Though she still does...I think she is an amazing example of somebody who did whatever it took to provide for her family and improve her own life. She''s very, very happy now.

When I was a kid a friend''s mom had an ironing business out of her home as a second job. My mom helped another friend make dolls in her home as a second job.

Unfortunately we live in a single-parent world and many have had to find a way to make it work. Everybody will say the same thing--it''s not easy, but it''s possible.

 

[Maria D]

Date: 1/28/2009 11:11:28 AM
Author: vespergirl

It astonishes me that all of my American-born friends of my generation (I'm 32) don't know how to cook, and neither do their mothers. If they do 'cook,' it's processed convenience foods that are WAY more expensive than buying simple ingredients. My only friends who do know how to cook are either immigrants or first-generation Americans like myself. I agree that many people may not be used to living on a budget, but that's why I titled this thread the way I did - people need to learn to adjust to their new circumstances by changing their habits.

Vespergirl, your posts are making me smile because you remind me so much of my mother. She came here at age 14 as an immigrant and at age 79 is still complaining about "Americans" and their lack of resourcefulness and common sense. I think I'm doing good when on a night I don't have time to cook I pick up a rotisserie chicken from the supermarket, add a loaf of french bread, steam up some broccoli and call it a meal. I'd NEVER do that with my mother around because I would get so much grief for spending $7.99 on a rotisserie chicken when I could have roasted my own for less than half that!


(I put Americans in quotes because my mother calls anyone in the US who isn't of Italian descent an American!)

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/28/2009 2:39:07 PM
Author: Maria D

Date: 1/28/2009 11:11:28 AM
Author: vespergirl

It astonishes me that all of my American-born friends of my generation (I''m 32) don''t know how to cook, and neither do their mothers. If they do ''cook,'' it''s processed convenience foods that are WAY more expensive than buying simple ingredients. My only friends who do know how to cook are either immigrants or first-generation Americans like myself. I agree that many people may not be used to living on a budget, but that''s why I titled this thread the way I did - people need to learn to adjust to their new circumstances by changing their habits.

Vespergirl, your posts are making me smile because you remind me so much of my mother. She came here at age 14 as an immigrant and at age 79 is still complaining about ''Americans'' and their lack of resourcefulness and common sense. I think I''m doing good when on a night I don''t have time to cook I pick up a rotisserie chicken from the supermarket, add a loaf of french bread, steam up some broccoli and call it a meal. I''d NEVER do that with my mother around because I would get so much grief for spending $7.99 on a rotisserie chicken when I could have roasted my own for less than half that!


(I put Americans in quotes because my mother calls anyone in the US who isn''t of Italian descent an American!)

LOL!!! I realize that I''m sounding like my mother & grandmother as well!

My family is from Croatia (Italy''s next-door neighbor) so I have a feeling we''re coming from very similar cultures. My parents also came over with their parents, when they were 13 and 11, and met in the US, but they''re from the same country. Even though they have been here most of their lives, and are American citizens, the still talk about "Americans" like they''re totally separate - even though all of us kids were born here & they''ve been here so long!

Don''t get me wrong, when I was still working, my husband and I used to go out to eat a couple of nights a week, took international vacations, shopped all the time, and totally liked to live it up. We still do, but when we had our son & I decided to stay at home, we made some big adjustments in the way that we live day to day, but I found that just doing things more the way our grandmothers did (clean my own house instead of the cleaning lady, wash my own car, cook from scratch, pack my husband lunches, etc.) saves SO MUCH money, and because I was raised that way as a kid, it was pretty easy to slide back into a thriftier way of living.

I know that I am fortunate because my husband makes an excellent salary, but I still hate waste. It''s just amazing to me when I see some families that are "struggling" financially, yet they spend money on things that are unecessary.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/28/2009 2:19:13 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 1/28/2009 1:19:59 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/28/2009 1:02:40 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 1/28/2009 8:10:36 AM
Author: LaraOnline
I think this is an interesting thread.
One thing that jumped out at me was the idea that if you want to not be poor, you should expect to work more than 40hours a week.
In comparison with Australia, US people are VERY hardworking, it seems. Most people here - poorer or less well paid people, especially - have an expectation that 40hours is at the upper most maximum of ongoing labour hours a week...
Richer or better paid people tend to have jobs where very long hours (50-70 hours) are expected, and this is regularly bemoaned as an 'issue' in the local newspapers.
The 'work-life balance' is a major preoccupation of 'current affairs' media, unions, feminist groups and all manner of other lobby groups, including health officials.

I think I was the only one who mentioned working more than one full-time job, so I thought I'd clarify. You don't have to work more than 40 hours to not be poor--heck, many of us probably know some people who do quite well on less than 40 hours. You work as hard as you need to to keep your head above water (food, shelter, water). If that is more than 40 hours a week, it's more than 40 hours a week. Once the basic needs are taken care of, then a person can think about work/life balance.

Can you explain how this would work for a single parent?

Work at a daycare

Growing up my bus driver would take her kids on the bus, she had a second job cleaning homes and her kids came with her. She was able to save for a home without putting her kids in daycare.

I have a friend who is a single parent with 3 kids who I think is amazing--she was married young, her husband was abusive and she left him with no education and no help. She struggled to find a job where she could work from home (she made less than $20K/year)--she could stretch a dollar better than anybody I've ever seen. She found a friend who was in a similar situation and they traded babysitting at night so they could both go to school. She just finished her nursing degree and for the first time in her life feels that she doesn't have to buget every cent. Though she still does...I think she is an amazing example of somebody who did whatever it took to provide for her family and improve her own life. She's very, very happy now.

When I was a kid a friend's mom had an ironing business out of her home as a second job. My mom helped another friend make dolls in her home as a second job.

Unfortunately we live in a single-parent world and many have had to find a way to make it work. Everybody will say the same thing--it's not easy, but it's possible.

It's great that the people you know were able to do that, unfortunately, those options are not always available for others. Some people do not have friends or a supportive family that can help out on a consistent basis for years (and years is often what's needed). What do you suggest for those people? I'm not looking for anecdotes because I have some of my own which shows the other side of this coin. I'm actually wondering what you would suggest for a single parent that has few people, if anyone, to lean on. There are people like that out there.

Also, my main focus was really on the idea of working 40 per week at one job, in addition to taking a second job. The whole pull yourself up by your bootstraps theory. I mean, I get it, I've personally done it, but I don't have children. I want to know how well a single parent can care for their children if they are working all of these hours just to make ends meet. I'm wondering three things, a) someone who is being worn down physically, mentally, and emotionally (and for little pay to boot), how much patience they will have with their kids?, b) how much actual time will they have for their kids? and c) if they have no help and can't get a stay at home job, who will watch their kids while they are working all of these hours?

 

[NewEnglandLady]

Date: 1/28/2009 2:56:52 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/28/2009 2:19:13 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 1/28/2009 1:19:59 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/28/2009 1:02:40 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 1/28/2009 8:10:36 AM
Author: LaraOnline
I think this is an interesting thread.
One thing that jumped out at me was the idea that if you want to not be poor, you should expect to work more than 40hours a week.
In comparison with Australia, US people are VERY hardworking, it seems. Most people here - poorer or less well paid people, especially - have an expectation that 40hours is at the upper most maximum of ongoing labour hours a week...
Richer or better paid people tend to have jobs where very long hours (50-70 hours) are expected, and this is regularly bemoaned as an ''issue'' in the local newspapers.
The ''work-life balance'' is a major preoccupation of ''current affairs'' media, unions, feminist groups and all manner of other lobby groups, including health officials.

I think I was the only one who mentioned working more than one full-time job, so I thought I''d clarify. You don''t have to work more than 40 hours to not be poor--heck, many of us probably know some people who do quite well on less than 40 hours. You work as hard as you need to to keep your head above water (food, shelter, water). If that is more than 40 hours a week, it''s more than 40 hours a week. Once the basic needs are taken care of, then a person can think about work/life balance.

Can you explain how this would work for a single parent?

Work at a daycare

Growing up my bus driver would take her kids on the bus, she had a second job cleaning homes and her kids came with her. She was able to save for a home without putting her kids in daycare.

I have a friend who is a single parent with 3 kids who I think is amazing--she was married young, her husband was abusive and she left him with no education and no help. She struggled to find a job where she could work from home (she made less than $20K/year)--she could stretch a dollar better than anybody I''ve ever seen. She found a friend who was in a similar situation and they traded babysitting at night so they could both go to school. She just finished her nursing degree and for the first time in her life feels that she doesn''t have to buget every cent. Though she still does...I think she is an amazing example of somebody who did whatever it took to provide for her family and improve her own life. She''s very, very happy now.

When I was a kid a friend''s mom had an ironing business out of her home as a second job. My mom helped another friend make dolls in her home as a second job.

Unfortunately we live in a single-parent world and many have had to find a way to make it work. Everybody will say the same thing--it''s not easy, but it''s possible.

It''s great that the people you know were able to do that, unfortunately, those options are not always available for others. Some people do not have friends or a supportive family that can help out on a consistent basis for years (and years is often what''s needed). What do you suggest for those people? I''m not looking for anecdotes because I have some of my own which shows the other side of this coin. I''m actually wondering what you would suggest for a single parent that has few people, if anyone, to lean on. There are people like that out there.

Also, my main focus was really on the idea of working 40 per week at one job, in addition to taking a second job. The whole pull yourself up by your bootstraps theory. I mean, I get it, I''ve personally done it, but I don''t have children. I want to know how well a single parent can care for their children if they are working all of these hours just to make ends meet. I''m wondering three things, a) someone who is being worn down physically, mentally, and emotionally (and for little pay to boot), how much patience they will have with their kids?, b) how much actual time will they have for their kids? and c) if they have no help and can''t get a stay at home job, who will watch their kids while they are working all of these hours?

I don''t want to go on and on about this..I think all of us probably know at least one person who is a single parent who is forced to work more than 40 hours a week. a.) I don''t know how much patience that leaves for their kids, I guess that just depends on how patient they are to begin with. b.) They''ll have as much time for their kids as they can possibly spare. I know at least two people who do at least a few hours of work at home after putting their kids to bed. And when they get to be school-aged, that helps. and c.) My friend had no help and no stay at home job...until she worked very hard to find both. I guess you could say she was committed.

 

[MoonWater]

I suppose my point is that it's not always as simple as getting an extra job or working more hours (or being more commited, that comment was odd). There are many things to consider and unfortunately not everyone has help and not everyone is successful. In fact, in many cases the children of these parents can end up repeating this cycle. It's great that it worked for you and people you know, but I know plenty of people it did not work for. So it's always weird when I read people offering advice as if it's a 'all you need to do is...' situation. I managed to survive with my own mother trying to do whatever work she could and as many hours as she could when I was growing up, we were homeless at one point. It's one of the main reasons I support funding for social programs. Children should not have to live like that. (Aside: lol, it's funny, I just remembered, there were many times we would have toast with apple sauce for dinner. We were pretty good at being poor).

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/28/2009 4:23:19 PM
Author: MoonWater

in many cases the children of these parents can end up repeating this cycle. It's great that it worked for you and people you know, but I know plenty of people it did not work for. So it's always weird when I read people offering advice as if it's a 'all you need to do is...' situation. I managed to survive with my own mother trying to do whatever work she could and as many hours as she could when I was growing up, we were homeless at one point. It's one of the main reasons I support funding for social programs. Children should not have to live like that. (Aside: lol, it's funny, I just remembered, there were many times we would have toast with apple sauce for dinner. We were pretty good at being poor).

My next door neighbor in Virginia is now very comfortable. Her husband is an executive retired from a large and prestigious corporation. She has a gorgeous home and everything she wants. She and her husband are Bush-supporting Republicans. When she was growing up, however, she lived with her divorced, alcoholic mother who had been deserted by her father. She remembers being stranded in a strange state with no food except breakfast cereal to eat. She says that she learned negotiation skills by learning to trade colored Trix cereal for sandwiches which other children had brought to school. (She couldn't believe that they would want Trix cereal, which she had eaten for supper the night before, instead of a sandwich for lunch!) But being poor affected her and her brother, the children, as Moonwater said.


Deborah

 

[dazzle66]

I''m sure that my opinion won''t be popular and I''m not trying to be harsh, but I think that when talking about single parents you again start getting into the life choices arena. I am not being naive or trying to make blanket statements because I know that things happen and don''t always go the way they were supposed to or the way you planned, but I''m pretty sure most people know where babies come from. I think that for a majority of the time, having children can be considered a luxury, and also a choice. If you know that your life situation would not be conducive to having children, keep your legs shut. If you are going to be engaging in activities that might result in a child being conceived, make sure that you would be able to appropriately take care of the child by yourself before you go through with it. You cannot always count on other people helping or contributing. I think a large part of all of this is personal responsibility.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:03:18 PM
Author: dazzle66

If you know that your life situation would not be conducive to having children, keep your legs shut.

My friend is pushing 60 and is from a Roman Catholic family. I believe that her parents had been married in the Catholic Church and I know that they were married legally. Maybe she (my friend''s mother) shouldn''t have married or had children, but people do. Men do leave women. Mothers are alcoholics. That isn''t the fault of the children. Children suffer.


Deborah

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:03:18 PM
Author: dazzle66
I''m sure that my opinion won''t be popular and I''m not trying to be harsh, but I think that when talking about single parents you again start getting into the life choices arena. I am not being naive or trying to make blanket statements because I know that things happen and don''t always go the way they were supposed to or the way you planned, but I''m pretty sure most people know where babies come from. I think that for a majority of the time, having children can be considered a luxury, and also a choice. If you know that your life situation would not be conducive to having children, keep your legs shut. If you are going to be engaging in activities that might result in a child being conceived, make sure that you would be able to appropriately take care of the child by yourself before you go through with it. You cannot always count on other people helping or contributing. I think a large part of all of this is personal responsibility.

Ahh, if it only it were that simple.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 1/28/2009 10:41:44 AM
Author: Hudson_Hawk
There are many many families in urban areas who survive on very little each month. My step sister is a SAHM of 3 with a husband who makes $40,000/year in a city in NH (with a Boston cost-of-living). They bring home around $500/week. She''s a SAHM because child care is too expensive and it''s more economical for them. They rent an apartment/condo and are hoping to buy a house this year. They don''t have cell phones, they have 1 land line without long distance. They have the basic of basic cable packages and they get their internet from a neighbor with an unsecured wireless network. They have 2 cars, but both are older and they limit their driving to just the essentials. They don''t eat out regularly, they cook at home (they might get a pizza on Friday night). By living frugally, they can afford to put money into savings each month to save for a house.

What''s amazing in this situation is my sister feeds a family of 5 on organic groceries bought entirely from Whole Foods... They lead a much simpler life than FI and I do. Our mortgage is twice what their rent is and we make 3 or 4 times as much as they do. They can save whereas we live check to check. I can''t leave a WF without dropping $50, and that''s on a good day! It''s all about priorities...

so true ! it''s how much you save that counts not how much you made.

 

[omieluv]

I have noticed in the past 5-7 years that lifestyles of the rich and famous really have become entrenched in American culture. Sure, this is not a novel concept, but I think it was at an all time high, until the economy tanked. Vanity, ignornace and a sense of entitlement have really hurt people financially. We all want the bigest home, drive the flashiest car, eat at the best restaurants, etc. This was all there in earlier years, but it rose to new levels once credit cards were so easy to get. Honestly, I think many people are afraid to admit to themselves that they do not earn enough to sustain a lifestyle they felt they are entitled to. People refuse to live like their parents / grandparents did in the "old days," as it must have been miserable eating home cooked meals, not being in credit card debt and owning a home that did not take days to clean.

Another issue is that people do not know how to budget their money and this is a topic that even hits people who are well intentioned. For instance, my younger brother came to me one day concerned because he was not able to save money at the end of the month. Now I know, it is rare for someone in their mid 20's to have this concern, but bear with me. So, I simply asked him what he had spent his money on for the current month and he said he spends it on the basics, like rent, car loan, gas, utilities, food. Again, I asked where is all of his money going and he looked at me like a deer in headlights. My brother is a smart kid, scored a 31 on his ACT and managed to keep himself out of credit card debt, but, I wanted to slap him upside the head. So i gave him a novel idea...TRACK YOUR SPENDING. With that same deer in headlights look he asks me how. I said, you can use a pencil and paper or even get fancy and use Excel. After I said that, I did not see him blink for 10 seconds. At that point I figured he was hopeless and took him by the hand and helped him break down his spending for the month and we found that he spent a very high percentage on gas for his car and eating out (surprise-surprise). For some reason, he was under the impression that just because he did not spend his money on "things" he was not being irresponsible with his money. He learned a few things from big sis that day.

I also think that people in the US do not understand that there are differences between being thrifty and being cheap. It is almost as if those who spend their money wisely are social outcasts. I feel I am very thrifty, but my friends call me "cheap," which I hate! My definition of being cheap is trying to get out of paying when you go to lunch with your friends, even if you have the money, which I do NOT engage in. For years, my younger brother would call me cheap for buying the store brand of certain food items to save a few cents. When I buy somehting nice for myself, I get teased for that too. My friends joke with me because they think I have a million dollars stashed away somewhere. Um, no. I just find ways to cut corners so that I can treat myself to something really nice for myself once in a while, it's a little known concept called SAVING MONEY. My BF often teased me too about being cheap but then could not make heads or tails over why I could bring myself for buying a Coach handbag. I told him that his monthly Starbucks habit combined with his going out to lunch habit would total out to be more money than the handbag. He did not believe me, until we did the math. He spent about 15-20 each day on lunch and coffee during the work week, so we calculated $17.5 x 20 days and came to $350 and my handbag was $300. So then I told him, that's why I can afford a nice handbag once in a great while. He could not believe how much he was spending and said "OMG, with $350, I could have bought that golf club I have been wanting."

 

[whitetulips]

Date: 1/28/2009 6:21:07 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/28/2009 6:03:18 PM

Author: dazzle66

I''m sure that my opinion won''t be popular and I''m not trying to be harsh, but I think that when talking about single parents you again start getting into the life choices arena. I am not being naive or trying to make blanket statements because I know that things happen and don''t always go the way they were supposed to or the way you planned, but I''m pretty sure most people know where babies come from. I think that for a majority of the time, having children can be considered a luxury, and also a choice. If you know that your life situation would not be conducive to having children, keep your legs shut. If you are going to be engaging in activities that might result in a child being conceived, make sure that you would be able to appropriately take care of the child by yourself before you go through with it. You cannot always count on other people helping or contributing. I think a large part of all of this is personal responsibility.

Ahh, if it only it were that simple.

Ditto.

 

[miraclesrule]

Okie dokie...my turn.

This is akin to walking in anothers shoes. I was a single parent at 19, so I can speak on this matter and it is one that I have been passionate about as I witness the health decline of Americans and the separation of the "haves" and "have nots". Unfortunately, the issue isn't as simple as some of us wish it to be, and so many markets and conditions are interconnected that contributed to the health and wellness breakdown. Word to omieluv on the entitlement issue and grasping for the consumer driven, debt ridden lifestyle...celebrity lifestyles being the main aspiration of a large generation.

When I was pregnant out of high school, I worked part time as a waitress. This provided me with extra time during the day to plan, purchase and prepare healthy meals. I stayed at home for one year on welfare after my daughter was born and maximized the ability of my measly food stamp allowance to ensure that I fed my us with real food. I didn't even buy baby food. My roommate was a single mom who did buy baby food in jars (sometimes with the food stamps she stole from me, but that story is in another thread). I used her leftover jars to store the fresh steamed and mashed veggies and fruits that I bought at Windmill Farms for $7. I only put as much in a jar that an infant eats at one time, so I never wasted any of the food, because I would only fill up 1/3, 1/2 of the jar. I needed money so I started working full time and cooking for her became much harder, so I was relieved that after a few years I was able to work from home doing medical billing and bookkeeping in my own company. But it wasn't enough money to raise her the way I knew I could. This meant that I had to take a new job which would lead to a career and one that would put me through school.

When a single mom is working full time and going to school at night, it is almost impossible to have healthly home cooked meals every night. I was still very much a "Tupperware Mom" and would hold parties to get mine for free. I would use their cookbooks that helped me prepare meals and use leftovers wisely. Example: Monday: Buy a roast and have some candied carrots with potatoes Night 2: Use one half of leftover roast to make shredded beef tacos Night 3: Cube remaining roast and make a stew/soup.

Once I began excelling in my career, it exhausted me and before I knew it, I would be running through the drive thru at McDonalds in order to grab us dinner. By the time she was in her middle school and teen years, we made some dinners, but I mainly fed her fresh fruits and fast food.

The end result is a nearly 30 year old who doesn't understand the importance of learning how to prepare meals like we did "back in the day". I don't know that it would really matter much, since the foods they sell at large grocery stores are so unhealthy anyway. The meat is hormone and antibiotic laden, not to mention inhumanely raised and slaughtered. The veggies and fruit are full of pesticides and the cost to the environment and our health is the price we pay.

Over the last year, especially since she got married, I have made it my passion to teach her about farm-to-table meals...local pastured meat, farmers markets, and menu planning. I think that the new way to health will be to return to the old way of bringing back community in more ways than one.

Did you know that if you buy the whole animal, you can divvy it up between a lot of people and it will end up costing you $3.25 a pound for good healthy meat, instead of $10 a pound at Whole Foods? The problem is that Americans are arrogant. We wait until it's being done in Europe, tack on 8-10 years and then give it a whirl. You'd think that by the way we talk, Americans think they know it all. What we do know, and what we don't, is now becoming evident.

Bon Appetit!

 

[MoonWater]

miracles, I still really want you to write a book...actually a few books. when are you going to get started? hell, i think you should start saving your PS posts as drafts. you can compile them later. c''mon, we''ll get a book out of you yet!!

 

[LaraOnline]

Date: 1/28/2009 1:02:40 PM
Author: NewEnglandLady

Date: 1/28/2009 8:10:36 AM

Author: LaraOnline

I think this is an interesting thread.

One thing that jumped out at me was the idea that if you want to not be poor, you should expect to work more than 40hours a week.

In comparison with Australia, US people are VERY hardworking, it seems. Most people here - poorer or less well paid people, especially - have an expectation that 40hours is at the upper most maximum of ongoing labour hours a week...

Richer or better paid people tend to have jobs where very long hours (50-70 hours) are expected, and this is regularly bemoaned as an ''issue'' in the local newspapers.

The ''work-life balance'' is a major preoccupation of ''current affairs'' media, unions, feminist groups and all manner of other lobby groups, including health officials.

I think I was the only one who mentioned working more than one full-time job, so I thought I''d clarify. You don''t have to work more than 40 hours to not be poor--heck, many of us probably know some people who do quite well on less than 40 hours. You work as hard as you need to to keep your head above water (food, shelter, water). If that is more than 40 hours a week, it''s more than 40 hours a week. Once the basic needs are taken care of, then a person can think about work/life balance.

Interesting response, and, again, I think this shows something of a cultural difference between the US and Australia. I have heard elsewhere of people having to keep more than one job to keep afloat in the US. It is usually used in a conversation as an example of how tough living in the US can be. Again, I feel certain that most Australians would feel that working 40 hours a week is at the upper limit of expectation... and that if that 36-hour or whatever wage is not paying enough to survive - well, time to go to the welfare office!

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 1/28/2009 11:55:30 PM
Author: MoonWater
miracles, I still really want you to write a book...actually a few books. when are you going to get started? hell, i think you should start saving your PS posts as drafts. you can compile them later. c'mon, we'll get a book out of you yet!!

That's so funny. Monday my assistant informed me that her thesis change was approved so she spent all weekend at the library researching her new subject and that the entire time she was reading, she kept saying to herself "Janice is a genius. She could have written this book...it's everything she tells me." I wanted to tell her "Duh".

I have come to realize that I am always before my time and just after I spend months talking to my staff, who often think I'm nuts or start googling to see if I am sane, some mainstream article will come out that redeems me. By the time I would ever get around to writing a book, it would probably be too late. Which is wierd, because I am before my time, so how can I be late? Hmmm...I'm also oxymoronic and a study in contrasts.

But you know how much I do appreciate the thought.

:::::Thread jack::::::

Oh never mind...I will find my old thread in Who's Who and tell you a story that I think you will LOVE!!! Look for it in a bit.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/29/2009 12:24:13 AM
Author: LaraOnline

Interesting response, and, again, I think this shows something of a cultural difference between the US and Australia. I have heard elsewhere of people having to keep more than one job to keep afloat in the US. It is usually used in a conversation as an example of how tough living in the US can be. Again, I feel certain that most Australians would feel that working 40 hours a week is at the upper limit of expectation... and that if that 36-hour or whatever wage is not paying enough to survive - well, time to go to the welfare office!

How civilized! Like being able to get medical care if you are sick, which I have heard is possible in some parts of the world, even if you don't have insurance!!!


Deborah

 

[Elmorton]

I didn''t read the last few posts, so forgive me if I say something that has already been repeated - but I think some of the expectations for poor people is a catch 22. Expecting poor people to make their own bread and roast their own chicken is a little...well, silly IMO. A person who is working extra hours to stay afloat doesn''t have the time to deal with that stuff. I worked part-time last winter, and it was an extreme eye-opener for me. I had time to do things like roast chickens and make bread and I could call companies when our bills were wrong and wait an hour on hold until the matter was settled - I could spend time clipping coupons and going to four different grocery stores to get the good deals and watch for major sales when it came to other necessities that we needed - but what I realized is that my very free schedule that semester was what allowed me to do so. If a person is working one or two jobs, maybe even trying to take classes, and raise a family, the lifestyle I had that semester is nearly impossible.

A really, really wonderful book to read (for pleasure) is Little Heathens by Mildred Kalish. She describes how family life in the depression era was truly about "waste not, want not" - but what the reader realizes by the end of the book is that it''s absolutely impossible to have a sustainable lifestyle and an actual job. The author admits that the way of life she had was time-consuming and nearly impossible in today''s world - and though she longs for the ways of the past, even her lifestyle is absolutely different. Every family member (of a large household) worked together, and many times, jobs for children involved things that would probably be considered child endangerment now. While I love the concept of a throw-back values such as making things at home, and doing things the old-fashioned way (ie, with real ingredients and real cooking etc), a person has to have the time to commit to these tasks, and for the average low-income wage earner, I would imagine that time is an extreme luxury more than anything else.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 1/29/2009 12:38:18 AM
Author: Elmorton
I didn''t read the last few posts, so forgive me if I say something that has already been repeated - but I think some of the expectations for poor people is a catch 22. Expecting poor people to make their own bread and roast their own chicken is a little...well, silly IMO. A person who is working extra hours to stay afloat doesn''t have the time to deal with that stuff. I worked part-time last winter, and it was an extreme eye-opener for me. I had time to do things like roast chickens and make bread and I could call companies when our bills were wrong and wait an hour on hold until the matter was settled - I could spend time clipping coupons and going to four different grocery stores to get the good deals and watch for major sales when it came to other necessities that we needed - but what I realized is that my very free schedule that semester was what allowed me to do so. If a person is working one or two jobs, maybe even trying to take classes, and raise a family, the lifestyle I had that semester is nearly impossible.

A really, really wonderful book to read (for pleasure) is Little Heathens by Mildred Kalish. She describes how family life in the depression era was truly about ''waste not, want not'' - but what the reader realizes by the end of the book is that it''s absolutely impossible to have a sustainable lifestyle and an actual job. The author admits that the way of life she had was time-consuming and nearly impossible in today''s world - and though she longs for the ways of the past, even her lifestyle is absolutely different. Every family member (of a large household) worked together, and many times, jobs for children involved things that would probably be considered child endangerment now. While I love the concept of a throw-back values such as making things at home, and doing things the old-fashioned way (ie, with real ingredients and real cooking etc), a person has to have the time to commit to these tasks, and for the average low-income wage earner, I would imagine that time is an extreme luxury more than anything else.

Ditto, Elmorton! This sums my opinion up nicely.

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 1/29/2009 12:38:18 AM
Author: Elmorton
I didn''t read the last few posts, so forgive me if I say something that has already been repeated - but I think some of the expectations for poor people is a catch 22. Expecting poor people to make their own bread and roast their own chicken is a little...well, silly IMO. A person who is working extra hours to stay afloat doesn''t have the time to deal with that stuff. I worked part-time last winter, and it was an extreme eye-opener for me. I had time to do things like roast chickens and make bread and I could call companies when our bills were wrong and wait an hour on hold until the matter was settled - I could spend time clipping coupons and going to four different grocery stores to get the good deals and watch for major sales when it came to other necessities that we needed - but what I realized is that my very free schedule that semester was what allowed me to do so. If a person is working one or two jobs, maybe even trying to take classes, and raise a family, the lifestyle I had that semester is nearly impossible.

A really, really wonderful book to read (for pleasure) is Little Heathens by Mildred Kalish. She describes how family life in the depression era was truly about ''waste not, want not'' - but what the reader realizes by the end of the book is that it''s absolutely impossible to have a sustainable lifestyle and an actual job. The author admits that the way of life she had was time-consuming and nearly impossible in today''s world - and though she longs for the ways of the past, even her lifestyle is absolutely different. Every family member (of a large household) worked together, and many times, jobs for children involved things that would probably be considered child endangerment now. While I love the concept of a throw-back values such as making things at home, and doing things the old-fashioned way (ie, with real ingredients and real cooking etc), a person has to have the time to commit to these tasks, and for the average low-income wage earner, I would imagine that time is an extreme luxury more than anything else.

Great post. You didn''t need to read the whole thing.

I highlighted the above, because although we don''t currently have the time to commit to these tasks, I believe that we will come to understand that we MUST make the time, as a society, if we expect to achieve sustainability as a species. It''s really that important.