The poor need to get better at being poor

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 5:09:22 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/29/2009 3:11:32 PM

Author: WishfulThinking

I take no particular issue with vespergirl''s original post and the more general point of this thread, but at least from what I could bring myself to read people seem to be collapsing the differences between peoples'' various situations and settling on ''The Poor'' as a category which can be discussed and critiqued in various ways.


There is a HUGE difference between the family on Dr. Phil and other people who can be rightly classified as ''poor.'' I don''t know anyone who considers his or her self or family to be ''poor,'' but I know a lot of people who have a very difficult time making ends meet for one reason or another and none of them hang out with their cellphones and eat at fancy restaurants every day of the week. There are a lot of people with shitty budgeting skills and unrealistic expectations, and there are a lot of other people who legitimately do not make enough money to support themselves and their families.


The way people treat this issue is SO incredibly absurd. Sorry to single out individual comments, but we''ve now heard everything from ''poor people shouldn''t have phones'' [praytell, how will you get a job if you have no contact information?] to some rendition of the old ''my family/someone I know pulled themselves up from their bootstraps, so the American Dream is alive and well if people just work hard enough. Yeah right. You want to tell that to my parents? Really? Because you know everything about them, and their life and circumstances and options? Yeah, no thanks. It''s really not as simple as being able to just find a way to make ends meet when the cost of living is high and there is really no living wage for a lot of people. You know someone who ''made it'' against the odds? Well I''ll respond with my own [technically meaningless, since it''s a silly way to debate] anecdotes about people I know who work THREE JOBS and still cannot cover their rent and a car living in a rural area where there is no public transit and you have to drive 25 minutes to the nearest grocery store [but not to the nearest restaurant, curiously]. Cutting corners is difficult when the only corners you have left to cut are your heat and electricity [in the dead of winter this is barely an option] and how many meals a day you eat. Think about it.


ETA: gypsy''s post was excellent.

Why stay in an economically depressed rural area if there are no jobs there? I see immigrants come from as far away as Asia and Africa with next to nothing in their pocket, and thrive. Instead of staying in an area where there are no jobs, they move to the US, where there are jobs. If someone can manage to get from Korea to the US, I think that people in Appalachia can manage to find their way to a less economically depressed area of the US.


And if there are truly no jobs in the US, that why are so many Mexicans coming here for work? There is work, it''s just not work that most Americans want to do. Sure, it stinks that over-paid union jobs are disappearing (e.g. auto workers) but there is far more work to be found in the service and agricultural fields.


For the past two years, fruit farmers in CA have been complaining that their fruit is rotting on the trees, because due to tighter border restrictions, their regular crop workers who come over from Mexico have not been able to cross the border for work. The farmers advertised widely that they needed help picking the crops, but big surprise, they didn''t have thousands of unemployed Americans rushing over for the work. Millions of dollars in produce went to waste, because without the Mexican crop pickers, they couldn''t find Americans willing to do that type of work. I guess it''s easier to sit around and collect an unemployment check.

Did you read my post? Your points don''t seem to correspond with my quoted post at all.

The places which are not economically depressed are expensive places to live, and people from all walks of life are having difficulty finding jobs in this economy. I''ve seen a lot of immigrants come from far away and absolutely fail to make a better life for themselves in the United States. For every success story you have I will have another in which good, hardworking people were not able to just "make it" in the US. A lot of people who come here to work, especially migrant labor, are illegal workers in the United States, who are willing to work for below the federal minimum wage. Because they are not being legally employed, they are being paid less than an American citizen would have to be paid. Have you looked into what the lives of these migrant workers is like? Living in shantytowns and working for very little pay is pretty much the norm for these people. The agricultural businesses that use predominantly Mexican labour to pick cannot afford to pay Americans minimum wage to do the same work, and even if they could, the minimum wage in many parts of this country [ESPECIALLY California, for goodness sakes] is not a living wage and isn''t enough to support people no matter how many hours they work.

I never should have responded to this thread in the first place. Lots of people have made great points and very little has been said to recognize their validity... instead people just continue to wax philosophical about hard work will always pay off, even though anyone who has EVER paid attention to the reality of the situation at any time in American history knows that by and large this is not true and really has never been true. It''s like herding cats to get people to understand this.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 7:47:39 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/29/2009 7:39:42 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 1/29/2009 5:00:33 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/29/2009 3:11:32 PM

Author: WishfulThinking




The way people treat this issue is SO incredibly absurd. Sorry to single out individual comments, but we''ve now heard everything from ''poor people shouldn''t have phones'' [praytell, how will you get a job if you have no contact information?]

Not what I said. Please read again. I said ''cell phone'' in my original post, and was referring to cell phones all along. I understand that some other people were confused as well, but I clarified.

I did read the thread.
You said ''phone'' in many places, and although you did clarify your point later, your assertion that having a cell phone is a luxury is not necessarily true. As other people pointed out, some people are required to have cell phones and don''t get reimbursed. My dad is one of them. He never has been and I''m sure never will be reimbursed for the cost of his phone.

Yes, but I was going off your comment about the phones, in which you said, ''praytell, how will you get a job if you have no contact information''. Of which I had already stated a landline is more often than not more than necessary. As in everything we debate on here, there is an exception to the rule. Your father sounds like one of them, although some of the other exceptions given I do not equate with a poverty situation.

Did you read my exceptions?

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 7:47:39 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/29/2009 7:39:42 PM

Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 1/29/2009 5:00:33 PM

Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/29/2009 3:11:32 PM


Author: WishfulThinking





The way people treat this issue is SO incredibly absurd. Sorry to single out individual comments, but we've now heard everything from 'poor people shouldn't have phones' [praytell, how will you get a job if you have no contact information?]

Not what I said. Please read again. I said 'cell phone' in my original post, and was referring to cell phones all along. I understand that some other people were confused as well, but I clarified.

I did read the thread.

You said 'phone' in many places, and although you did clarify your point later, your assertion that having a cell phone is a luxury is not necessarily true. As other people pointed out, some people are required to have cell phones and don't get reimbursed. My dad is one of them. He never has been and I'm sure never will be reimbursed for the cost of his phone.

Yes, but I was going off your comment about the phones, in which you said, 'praytell, how will you get a job if you have no contact information'. Of which I had already stated a landline is more often than not more than necessary. As in everything we debate on here, there is an exception to the rule. Your father sounds like one of them, although some of the other exceptions given I do not equate with a poverty situation.

Your post was not the best example, lucky. I apologize.
My major issue with this thread is that most of what is being discussed--people "making it" and the American Dream alive and well rewarding people who are willing to work hard enough--is the exception to the rule, and based on anecdotal evidence rather than statistics about employment, wages, and poverty... all of which show that this is NOT the case. Many people who are middle class and wealthy work very hard, but that doesn't mean that people who are less well-off are not working just as hard.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 7:49:28 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

I never should have responded to this thread in the first place. Lots of people have made great points and very little has been said to recognize their validity... instead people just continue to wax philosophical about hard work will always pay off, even though anyone who has EVER paid attention to the reality of the situation at any time in American history knows that by and large this is not true and really has never been true. It''s like herding cats to get people to understand this.

*hugs*

and thanx so much for that visual image. I needed a laugh.

 

[Dancing Fire]

poor? in America ?? no way!!

heck, people on welfare in America lives better than many middle class income people in other parts of the world.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 1/29/2009 7:52:27 PM
Author: MoonWater

Did you read my exceptions?

Yes, I did, and I replied...but then I deleted it. I just didn''t feel like arguing about it anymore because I felt like I was going to get every scenario under the sun. My original point was in regards to children, at the poverty level (but really any children), having cell phones. Which expanded to my belief that a cell phone is a luxury, and a landline was more than efficient. And then more scenarios kept being brought up and I just wanted to scream "Fine. Keep your cell phone!" But my opinion hasn''t changed, for the most part. I would consider some situations more dire than others, such as the exceptions you gave.

 

[Diamond Confused]

I completely agree with you but I have a better question... why are they a family of 6 in the first place. People should not have more kids than they can afford.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/29/2009 8:01:11 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
poor? in America ?? no way!!

heck, people on welfare in America lives better than many middle class income people in other parts of the world.

People who work and just make over what qualifies for welfare are the most worse off.
The working poor class is the hardest hit group in the US and often the hardest working.
Health care is the main thing that kills them literally and figuratively....
The new bankruptcy laws made sure that many of them will never recover.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/29/2009 11:29:53 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/29/2009 8:01:11 PM

Author: Dancing Fire

poor? in America ?? no way!!

heck, people on welfare in America lives better than many middle class income people in other parts of the world.

People who work and just make over what qualifies for welfare are the most worse off.

The working poor class is the hardest hit group in the US and often the hardest working.

Health care is the main thing that kills them literally and figuratively....

The new bankruptcy laws made sure that many of them will never recover.

Thanks for bringing this up. I completely forgot about it.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 1/29/2009 11:29:53 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/29/2009 8:01:11 PM

Author: Dancing Fire

poor? in America ?? no way!!

heck, people on welfare in America lives better than many middle class income people in other parts of the world.

People who work and just make over what qualifies for welfare are the most worse off.

The working poor class is the hardest hit group in the US and often the hardest working.

Health care is the main thing that kills them literally and figuratively....

The new bankruptcy laws made sure that many of them will never recover.

+1000 billion. Great post.
You are so right, strm. I''ve found myself in that bracket a few times and it''s maddening and disappointing that it''s so rarely addressed. The healthcare thing hits close to home because in my state [MA] we are required to have health insurance and after this requirement was implemented there was almost no change in terms of income requirements to qualify for goverment-assisted health insurance, which I think is too bad. I know a lot of people, my parents included have had a hard time affording the insurance. While my political views support universal healthcare I think that is a really awful way to go about it.

 

[swimmer]

Date: 1/29/2009 8:01:11 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
poor? in America ?? no way!!

heck, people on welfare in America lives better than many middle class income people in other parts of the world.

Very true. Very different living standard expectations in the US. And very different weather too, right? I was with a very proud Montreal resident who kept pointing out how there were no homeless people in his city. It was vastly below freezing there, any homeless persons or even window shoppers would have turned into popsicles. He was correct about Canada having a better "safety net" but wouldn''t you prefer to experience abject poverty somewhere where you can sleep outside?

Storm, so true about healthcare.

 

[partgypsy]

The reason that "poor" people or people on the margins have cell phones, is that they do not have stable housing, moving from place to place, squatting, etc, they do not have the luxury of a land line, but, to get doctors appointments, try to get a job, pretty much anything since they do not possibly have an address, is their life line. Also cell phones are not necessarily expensive. The homeless that I on occasion work with often have an older possibly refurbished cell phone and buy prepaid minutes; they cannot afford nor need a monthly plan. The next time you see a "poor" person using a cell phone please leave your preconceptions at the door.

Example of the necessity of cell phones: My sister is in the process of trying to find a job. She had her cell phone switched off, turned it on and found out she missed a phone call, she had gotten an offer on the job she wanted! She called them back, but because she had not responded immediately (it was a difference of 5 hours when they called her and she called back) they moved on to the next person and offered them the job.

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 1/30/2009 10:49:37 AM
Author: part gypsy
The next time you see a ''poor'' person using a cell phone please leave your preconceptions at the door.

Again. Exceptions to the rule. Which was the same exception as Moon''s, which is what I already addressed. Give it up already. No, I don''t think it''s okay for 12 year olds living at the poverty level to have cell phones. Yes, I would hope that getting off welfare would be a priority before everyone in your family gets a cell phone. YES, there are exceptions to the rule. No, I don''t consider someone looking for their big break to be the exception.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/30/2009 10:49:37 AM
Author: part gypsy
The reason that ''poor'' people or people on the margins have cell phones, is that they do not have stable housing, moving from place to place, squatting, etc, they do not have the luxury of a land line, but, to get doctors appointments, try to get a job, pretty much anything since they do not possibly have an address, is their life line. Also cell phones are not necessarily expensive. The homeless that I on occasion work with often have an older possibly refurbished cell phone and buy prepaid minutes; they cannot afford nor need a monthly plan. The next time you see a ''poor'' person using a cell phone please leave your preconceptions at the door.


Example of the necessity of cell phones: My sister is in the process of trying to find a job. She had her cell phone switched off, turned it on and found out she missed a phone call, she had gotten an offer on the job she wanted! She called them back, but because she had not responded immediately (it was a difference of 5 hours when they called her and she called back) they moved on to the next person and offered them the job.

There are several groups around the US giving cell phones out to the homeless.
Sadly there have been a few murders over them.
Cell phones and bikes are often fought over as both provide a step up in life quality.

 

[partgypsy]

Date: 1/27/2009 6:18:53 PM
Author: luckystar112
I guess all poor neighborhoods are different. We have plenty of ''discount'' grocery stores that I''ve shopped at plenty of times since you can get twice the food for the same amount of money.
As for cell phones, I don''t buy it. You can get a landline for as little as $10, sometimes free if you ask just for access to emergency numbers. Any phone is really a luxury. My brother was just telling me the other day about how some guy knocked on his car window and asked him for a dollar...when my brother went into his wallet to get it, the guy''s cell phone rang! Needless to say my brother just drove off. 12 year old kids in poor neighborhoods have cell phones now. Blows my mind.
I didn''t get my first cell phone until I was 18, my DH until he was 20. Our childrent won''t be getting one....and if times are ever tight for us they will be the first things to go.

I agree, that 12 year olds don''t necessarily need cell phones. But that wasn''t your main point. You said any phone is really a luxury. I disagree.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/30/2009 11:12:44 AM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/30/2009 10:49:37 AM
Author: part gypsy
The next time you see a 'poor' person using a cell phone please leave your preconceptions at the door.

Again. Exceptions to the rule. Which was the same exception as Moon's, which is what I already addressed. Give it up already. No, I don't think it's okay for 12 year olds living at the poverty level to have cell phones. Yes, I would hope that getting off welfare would be a priority before everyone in your family gets a cell phone. YES, there are exceptions to the rule. No, I don't consider someone looking for their big break to be the exception.

Did it ever occur to you that the type of people you're talking about is the exception to the rule?

The basic point everyone is making is simple: Having a cell phone is not a luxury. If you believe a phone in and of itself is not a luxury, I do not understand why you make a distinction between a home phone and a cell. For many people a cell is their only phone, it IS their home phone. And, as pointed out several times, it can often be as cheap if not cheaper than a landline, i.e. NOT a luxury.

 

[luckystar112]

Sorry, I got defensive. I was on my way to work.
My main point, going off of the OP about poor familiies, is that phones were a luxury. I think we''re getting lost in translation here because this, of course, is dependant on a number of factors. Some of which have been brought up and I agree with, and others that I don''t agree with. I don''t know if people think that I haven''t been around poor or homeless people or something, but I''ve lived it. Grew up in subsidized housing until the age of 14. I was an only child, but had many friends with multiple siblings. We all did without. Cell phones weren''t a big thing back then, but Nike Airs, Starter jackets (lol), beepers, etc. were all things that the "rich" kids had and that we wanted. This is in contrast to something that Haven touched upon, which she saw in her own school, regarding kids with cell phones and those hip hoodies that everyone is wearing. That wouldn''t happen in my household. Not to say that people didn''t spend unecessarily back then...I specifically remember one of the neighborhood mothers getting a bunch of cash in a settlement and spending it on a convertable--while on welfare, with two kids. I remember a teacher buying another child socks, because it was the middle of WINTER and the kid had NONE, only for the mother to return them for the cash.

I just believe that there are needs and wants, and people had a tendency to confuse the two. I definitely think, for the most part, that a cell phone is a want in the scenarios I''ve given. Again, there are exceptions to the rule for everything. You could argue that since a lot of companies require you to apply for jobs online, the internet is a must in order to get a job. That''s fine, but it''s just not how I was raised...we''d go to the library.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/30/2009 12:34:04 PM
Author: luckystar112
Sorry, I got defensive. I was on my way to work.
My main point, going off of the OP about poor familiies, is that phones were a luxury. I think we're getting lost in translation here because this, of course, is dependant on a number of factors. Some of which have been brought up and I agree with, and others that I don't agree with. I don't know if people think that I haven't been around poor or homeless people or something, but I've lived it. Grew up in subsidized housing until the age of 14. I was an only child, but had many friends with multiple siblings. We all did without. Cell phones weren't a big thing back then, but Nike Airs, Starter jackets (lol), beepers, etc. were all things that the 'rich' kids had and that we wanted. This is in contrast to something that Haven touched upon, which she saw in her own school, regarding kids with cell phones and those hip hoodies that everyone is wearing. That wouldn't happen in my household. Not to say that people didn't spend unecessarily back then...I specifically remember one of the neighborhood mothers getting a bunch of cash in a settlement and spending it on a convertable--while on welfare, with two kids. I remember a teacher buying another child socks, because it was the middle of WINTER and the kid had NONE, only for the mother to return them for the cash.

I just believe that there are needs and wants, and people had a tendency to confuse the two. I definitely think, for the most part, that a cell phone is a want in the scenarios I've given. Again, there are exceptions to the rule for everything. You could argue that since a lot of companies require you to apply for jobs online, the internet is a must in order to get a job. That's fine, but it's just not how I was raised...we'd go to the library.

And I again I say, did it occurr to you that what you witnessed was the exception and not the other way around?

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 1/30/2009 12:36:16 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/30/2009 12:34:04 PM
Author: luckystar112
Sorry, I got defensive. I was on my way to work.
My main point, going off of the OP about poor familiies, is that phones were a luxury. I think we''re getting lost in translation here because this, of course, is dependant on a number of factors. Some of which have been brought up and I agree with, and others that I don''t agree with. I don''t know if people think that I haven''t been around poor or homeless people or something, but I''ve lived it. Grew up in subsidized housing until the age of 14. I was an only child, but had many friends with multiple siblings. We all did without. Cell phones weren''t a big thing back then, but Nike Airs, Starter jackets (lol), beepers, etc. were all things that the ''rich'' kids had and that we wanted. This is in contrast to something that Haven touched upon, which she saw in her own school, regarding kids with cell phones and those hip hoodies that everyone is wearing. That wouldn''t happen in my household. Not to say that people didn''t spend unecessarily back then...I specifically remember one of the neighborhood mothers getting a bunch of cash in a settlement and spending it on a convertable--while on welfare, with two kids. I remember a teacher buying another child socks, because it was the middle of WINTER and the kid had NONE, only for the mother to return them for the cash.

I just believe that there are needs and wants, and people had a tendency to confuse the two. I definitely think, for the most part, that a cell phone is a want in the scenarios I''ve given. Again, there are exceptions to the rule for everything. You could argue that since a lot of companies require you to apply for jobs online, the internet is a must in order to get a job. That''s fine, but it''s just not how I was raised...we''d go to the library.

And I again I say, did it occurr to you that what you witnessed was the exception and not the other way around?

Yup, and obviously, I don''t agree.

Have you ever considered that you argue for the sake of arguing?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 1/30/2009 12:39:49 PM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/30/2009 12:36:16 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/30/2009 12:34:04 PM
Author: luckystar112
Sorry, I got defensive. I was on my way to work.
My main point, going off of the OP about poor familiies, is that phones were a luxury. I think we''re getting lost in translation here because this, of course, is dependant on a number of factors. Some of which have been brought up and I agree with, and others that I don''t agree with. I don''t know if people think that I haven''t been around poor or homeless people or something, but I''ve lived it. Grew up in subsidized housing until the age of 14. I was an only child, but had many friends with multiple siblings. We all did without. Cell phones weren''t a big thing back then, but Nike Airs, Starter jackets (lol), beepers, etc. were all things that the ''rich'' kids had and that we wanted. This is in contrast to something that Haven touched upon, which she saw in her own school, regarding kids with cell phones and those hip hoodies that everyone is wearing. That wouldn''t happen in my household. Not to say that people didn''t spend unecessarily back then...I specifically remember one of the neighborhood mothers getting a bunch of cash in a settlement and spending it on a convertable--while on welfare, with two kids. I remember a teacher buying another child socks, because it was the middle of WINTER and the kid had NONE, only for the mother to return them for the cash.

I just believe that there are needs and wants, and people had a tendency to confuse the two. I definitely think, for the most part, that a cell phone is a want in the scenarios I''ve given. Again, there are exceptions to the rule for everything. You could argue that since a lot of companies require you to apply for jobs online, the internet is a must in order to get a job. That''s fine, but it''s just not how I was raised...we''d go to the library.

And I again I say, did it occurr to you that what you witnessed was the exception and not the other way around?

Yup, and obviously, I don''t agree.

Have you ever considered that you argue for the sake of arguing?

If you say so. However, I''ve read statitics on the abuses of welfare and it''s not some widespread thing which would indicate the scenerios you bring up are indeed the exception. But whatever makes you feel better. A phone, is a luxury (and claiming to only refer to a cell makes no difference since the cost factor has been pointed out).

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/29/2009 9:24:57 PM
Author: Diamond Confused

I completely agree with you but I have a better question... why are they a family of 6 in the first place. People should not have more kids than they can afford.

I am afraid that I am about to slide into a mode in which I usually do not. I have just had it, though. What else can I say except:

It is most unfortunate that for so many millennia the people of the world suffered in poverty and starvation...in most countries...when all they needed was to hear your wisdom! Had they heeded you, thousands of years of suffering could have been avoided. (Or had the women kept their legs closed, as suggested above.)


Deborah

If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?

 

[packrat]

Just wanted to jump in and say, I remember picking up my birth control pills, and husband commented on the price of them. I said, well, we can avoid the expense and just not have sex honey. He said, but, we can''t afford to do anything else fun, this is all we have!

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 1/30/2009 5:08:59 PM
Author: packrat
Just wanted to jump in and say, I remember picking up my birth control pills, and husband commented on the price of them. I said, well, we can avoid the expense and just not have sex honey. He said, but, we can''t afford to do anything else fun, this is all we have!

Hahaha, that''s funny.

I think that having a land line and a cell phone is a luxury.

 

[LaraOnline]

Date: 1/30/2009 11:02:28 PM
Author: miraclesrule

Date: 1/30/2009 5:08:59 PM

Author: packrat

Just wanted to jump in and say, I remember picking up my birth control pills, and husband commented on the price of them. I said, well, we can avoid the expense and just not have sex honey. He said, but, we can''t afford to do anything else fun, this is all we have!

Hahaha, that''s funny.


I think that having a land line and a cell phone is a luxury.

For many women, particularly poor women, having sex is not really a luxury but a necessity: getting (and keeping) a man can give a woman a chance at survival, or better quality of life - and that applies in the US as much as any other country.

I myself certainly have a much better quality of life than I would manage if I was unmarried.

In many places in the world, and I guess this is slightly OT, sex is blatantly asked for, and traded for ''favours'' such as food, shelter and medical supplies...in such surroundings, a woman may keep her morals, and die of starvation...

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/30/2009 12:45:42 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/30/2009 12:39:49 PM

Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/30/2009 12:36:16 PM

Author: MoonWater

Date: 1/30/2009 12:34:04 PM

Author: luckystar112

Sorry, I got defensive. I was on my way to work.

My main point, going off of the OP about poor familiies, is that phones were a luxury. I think we''re getting lost in translation here because this, of course, is dependant on a number of factors. Some of which have been brought up and I agree with, and others that I don''t agree with. I don''t know if people think that I haven''t been around poor or homeless people or something, but I''ve lived it. Grew up in subsidized housing until the age of 14. I was an only child, but had many friends with multiple siblings. We all did without. Cell phones weren''t a big thing back then, but Nike Airs, Starter jackets (lol), beepers, etc. were all things that the ''rich'' kids had and that we wanted. This is in contrast to something that Haven touched upon, which she saw in her own school, regarding kids with cell phones and those hip hoodies that everyone is wearing. That wouldn''t happen in my household. Not to say that people didn''t spend unecessarily back then...I specifically remember one of the neighborhood mothers getting a bunch of cash in a settlement and spending it on a convertable--while on welfare, with two kids. I remember a teacher buying another child socks, because it was the middle of WINTER and the kid had NONE, only for the mother to return them for the cash.

I just believe that there are needs and wants, and people had a tendency to confuse the two. I definitely think, for the most part, that a cell phone is a want in the scenarios I''ve given. Again, there are exceptions to the rule for everything. You could argue that since a lot of companies require you to apply for jobs online, the internet is a must in order to get a job. That''s fine, but it''s just not how I was raised...we''d go to the library.

And I again I say, did it occurr to you that what you witnessed was the exception and not the other way around?

Yup, and obviously, I don''t agree.

Have you ever considered that you argue for the sake of arguing?

If you say so. However, I''ve read statitics on the abuses of welfare and it''s not some widespread thing which would indicate the scenerios you bring up are indeed the exception. But whatever makes you feel better. A phone, is a luxury (and claiming to only refer to a cell makes no difference since the cost factor has been pointed out).

True. And with all due respect Lucky, the welfare system is a very different animal than it was when you were a kid. You can''t just live off welfare for life anymore nor can you be on welfare without doing something for that money.

 

[luckystar112]

I mentioned a neighbor on welfare in my last example, but I was not referring only to the homeless/people on welfare through the duration of this thread. I was referring to anyone that finds them in a spot where their basic needs aren't being met, but who has enough money for other things, such as the latest designer jacket or cell phones for their kids (or themselves, if it is not necessary--which I often don't think it is). I think that is a broad range of people, from homeless to those making six figures.
So no, not trying to get into the whole "welfare" argument again. I'm familiar with today's system, and it wasn't the point. The point was the mother who put her wants before her needs. But perhaps it was of her opinion that she didn't "need" to move out of our neighborhood. Don't know!

 

[luckystar112]

Date: 1/30/2009 11:02:28 PM
Author: miraclesrule

I think that having a land line and a cell phone is a luxury.

Somehow I doubt you''ll get the same reaction I did. haha!

 

[partgypsy]

Well Lucky if you makes you feel any better I didn''t own a cell phone until Oct 2008, and its the prepaid variety to be used in case of emergency. So I agree with the general sentiment that both a landline AND a cell phone is not necessary (of course there are exceptions!).

 

[movie zombie]

Date: 1/31/2009 10:41:12 AM
Author: LaraOnline


For many women, particularly poor women, having sex is not really a luxury but a necessity: getting (and keeping) a man can give a woman a chance at survival, or better quality of life - and that applies in the US as much as any other country.

I myself certainly have a much better quality of life than I would manage if I was unmarried.

In many places in the world, and I guess this is slightly OT, sex is blatantly asked for, and traded for ''favours'' such as food, shelter and medical supplies...in such surroundings, a woman may keep her morals, and die of starvation...

so very true.

movie zombie

 

[miraclesrule]

Date: 1/31/2009 11:20:16 AM
Author: luckystar112

Date: 1/30/2009 11:02:28 PM
Author: miraclesrule

I think that having a land line and a cell phone is a luxury.

Somehow I doubt you''ll get the same reaction I did. haha!

Haha, well I was just trying to be a smartaleck. The problem was that I can''t figure out how to get an emoticon in the correct place when using Firefox, so it came across seriously. But I guess in this day and age, it is slightly true...about the phones...and having both.