Living The Dream: What Do You Own – Really?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Housing codes, BTW, have a huge impact on the choices poor people make. A certain standard of living is now LEGISLATED in most areas of the US. They may have been implemented for very good reasons, but now, the legal choices are to live in a home that is to code, or not to live in a home at all. Portland had the hardest time establishing a fucking tent city because it's "not to code". In other words, the government would rather have people dying under bridges (where it is still illegal for them to be) than living in an unsightly tin shed. So these "choices" really become a matter of life or death. Can't afford your electric bill? It gets cut off, now requires paying the back bill plus a $100 deposit to get them turned on again. DHS takes your kids away because it's illegal to have kids in a home without electricity or heat. Landlord finds out you are living without electricity, evicts you.

Oh noes, you are living under a bridge!

Why aren't you happy? You must not did try hard enough!

[Placid Dingo]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm

46.2 million people in the US live below the poverty line.

I want to know when the last time the people ITT talking about "assessment" and "choices" made less than 11k/yr with no one else providing support.

OK well that's me.

I'm just trying to make a semantic point.

If you have more than one option, there's a choice. Even if its "Do this or die." I really don't care about this whole point, it's neutral to me. A "do or die" choice is still a choice to me, but all the arguments you make about how terrible it it, well, I agree. And that's the only point I care to make on that.

The point I care about is taking something nonphysical like 'your time' and saying is doesn't belong to you. I think it's a stupid way to look at it. I don't call a right or wrong here, because let's face it, you can't touch the time or prove ownership. But it feels like giving away your power to say 'my boss OWNS my time.'
I guess again, it's a semantic point but if I was in such a challenging situation I still wouldn't say 'I don't own my own time.' It feels too disempowering. 'I'm forced to use all my time fighting to survive, instead of enjoying my life.' Sure. And that's fucked, and a systematic failure. BUT still, I am forced to spend all MY time working a shitty job. I can't understand the eagerness ITT to claim that one has no claim to their own time.

For the record, I've not been on such a low wage.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In my experience, moving closer to the middle actually gives you less ability to control where you want to be one the spectrum. Most shitty jobs, in part because they're shitty, offer a lot of flexibility as to how much you work, especially if you're good at the job. And if a shitty job doesn't allow you the flexibility you need, it's usually not hard to move on to another shitty job (well, maybe not these days, but up until recently). More "respectable" jobs almost all require that you trade away a minimum of 40 hours a week, during specified times, and sometimes require you to make lifestyle adjustments (you need to follow the dress code, be able to pass the drug test, get a haircut, whatever) in return for the paycheck. When I drove a cab, I could work 2 or 3 days a week if I wanted, as long as I was willing to deal with the consequences (eating once a day, not being able to do anything that cost money, occasionally getting utilities shut off because I misjudged how much I'd make on the nights I worked), and there were a lot of times when I did just that to so I could work on personal projects. Now that I have a "real" job, I don't have that option. I'm expected to be here 40 hours a week even if I'd rather have the time to myself instead of the money.

It's not so much "get a better job, you bum." More "re-assess what constitutes 'necessity.'"

But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.

If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.

Not so bad in the US currently, we still have a fairly robust welfare system.

I doubt that will continue much longer, but it is the case at the moment.

It doesn't if you don't have an address.

[kingyak]

But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.

If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.

You have to create that leeway for yourself (just to clarify here, the last three years are the first time in my life--including when I was growing up--that my income's broken the poverty level), and usually that means lowering your comfort level far below what most people would deem acceptable (a kerosine heater and a sun shower eliminate the gas bill as long as you don't mind the fumes and cold showers on cloudy days).

And I'll completely give you that it's much easier if you're single, but I don't see how "don't have kids" qualifies as "don't have bullshit." With birth control as easily available as it is, having children is a choice. If the responsibilities of raising a kid are going to detract from your happiness more than having them will add to it, you should probably choose not to have them.

I'm completely on board with you about the fact that most middle-class and better people simply don't understand the opportunity costs of being poor (in fact, I'm usually pointing out many of the same things you're saying in discussions like these, just in a different context), but poverty does not remove all control over your own life.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm

46.2 million people in the US live below the poverty line.

I want to know when the last time the people ITT talking about "assessment" and "choices" made less than 11k/yr with no one else providing support.

OK well that's me.

I'm just trying to make a semantic point.

If you have more than one option, there's a choice. Even if its "Do this or die." I really don't care about this whole point, it's neutral to me. A "do or die" choice is still a choice to me, but all the arguments you make about how terrible it it, well, I agree. And that's the only point I care to make on that.

The point I care about is taking something nonphysical like 'your time' and saying is doesn't belong to you. I think it's a stupid way to look at it. I don't call a right or wrong here, because let's face it, you can't touch the time or prove ownership. But it feels like giving away your power to say 'my boss OWNS my time.'
I guess again, it's a semantic point but if I was in such a challenging situation I still wouldn't say 'I don't own my own time.' It feels too disempowering. 'I'm forced to use all my time fighting to survive, instead of enjoying my life.' Sure. And that's fucked, and a systematic failure. BUT still, I am forced to spend all MY time working a shitty job. I can't understand the eagerness ITT to claim that one has no claim to their own time.

For the record, I've not been on such a low wage.

So it's a pointless semantic argument just for the sake of arguing pointless semantics? OK then.

So, let's just go with "you can't own time". Back to the OP. What DO you own?

[kingyak]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm

46.2 million people in the US live below the poverty line.

I want to know when the last time the people ITT talking about "assessment" and "choices" made less than 11k/yr with no one else providing support.

From 1998-2008, give or take a few thousand in any particular year (I averaged anywhere from $700-$1000/month).

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.

If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.

You have to create that leeway for yourself (just to clarify here, the last three years are the first time in my life--including when I was growing up--that my income's broken the poverty level), and usually that means lowering your comfort level far below what most people would deem acceptable (a kerosine heater and a sun shower eliminate the gas bill as long as you don't mind the fumes and cold showers on cloudy days).

And I'll completely give you that it's much easier if you're single, but I don't see how "don't have kids" qualifies as "don't have bullshit." With birth control as easily available as it is, having children is a choice. If the responsibilities of raising a kid are going to detract from your happiness more than having them will add to it, you should probably choose not to have them.

I'm completely on board with you about the fact that most middle-class and better people simply don't understand the opportunity costs of being poor (in fact, I'm usually pointing out many of the same things you're saying in discussions like these, just in a different context), but poverty does not remove all control over your own life.

A kerosene heater and sun showers in an apartment? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? 1. Illegal as fuck, you WILL be evicted if your landlord finds out, and 2. kerosene heaters kill people from carbon monoxide poisoning all the time. WTF, that's completely idiotic.

Kids are (mostly) a choice, until you have them. That's why that argument is facile.

Birth control fails, and abortions aren't free, or even cheap. Sometimes people plan to have kids because they're financially stable, and then they get divorced, and then the economy tanks. Sometimes people simply make bad decisions. Regardless, children are born. What would you do if you knocked someone up? Do you have a choice?

Real life happens. When you see poverty increase, that means that people who were not in poverty before have entered it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news/economy/poverty_rate_income/index.htm

46.2 million people in the US live below the poverty line.

I want to know when the last time the people ITT talking about "assessment" and "choices" made less than 11k/yr with no one else providing support.

From 1998-2008, give or take a few thousand in any particular year (I averaged anywhere from $700-$1000/month).

You were living alone, with no financial input from anyone else?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

BTW, nobody said that poverty "removes all control" from your own life. It simply reduces it significantly.

[Placid Dingo]

EVERYTIME I TRY TO SAY SOMETHING SOMEBODY ELSE POSTS INSTEAD! IT'S LIKE REAL LIFE

Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!



Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time.  He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time.  

Life is hard work, even for us rich white men.  

And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost.  I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.

No. No. No.

The point is that what many of the things we call choices are not choices, but driven by necessity. Within those necessities lie certain choices, but the choices are still being driven by some external force.

So a choice is a choice, except when it's between a good option and a bad one?

And OHGODOHGOD any moment now somebody's going to say the words F--- W--- and then we're ALL fucked.

Where did I say that?

Your last sentence adds what to the conversation?

One of my first threads was about those dreaded words in the last sentence. It was a bloodbath. So I guess... I was making a funny? Also, we're in the terrortory of 'when is a choice not a choice' whih is when these kind of 'will' issues come up.

Anyway, I think I made my point clearly replying to Nigel but again; To eat, or not to eat is a choice. Even if one option is shithouse. So if you can't agree to that, then we perceive 'choices' differently, and that's OK, but this conversation has nowhere else to go.

If you can't sell your phone, that is when the question of whether or not it is really your phone becomes an issue.  Or if you can't share it, or take it apart and try to figure out how it works.

You certainly do not own any music that might happen to be on your phone, or on a CD in your home for that matter.  You also don't own the apps on the phone.

I made it pretty clear I'm not talking about ownership under law. But that's interesting enough in its own way.

So it's a pointless semantic argument just for the sake of arguing pointless semantics? OK then.

It may be pointless to you. The topic of 'who owns your time' came up, and to me the way we choose to view this is extremely important.

[The Rev]

EVERYTIME I TRY TO SAY SOMETHING SOMEBODY ELSE POSTS INSTEAD! IT'S LIKE REAL LIFE

Hey, stop knocking my extremely priviledged worldview!



Anyway, it's sounding like The Rev has the notion that the perfect state of being is a hedonistic, "do as you please" series of behaviors 100% of the time.  He neglects to notice that this state of being has never existed, at any point in time. 

Life is hard work, even for us rich white men. 

And, as an aside, I should point out that the most fun and joy I have is entirely free of monetary cost.  I have things, and they make me comfortable, but they don't make me happy.

No. No. No.

The point is that what many of the things we call choices are not choices, but driven by necessity. Within those necessities lie certain choices, but the choices are still being driven by some external force.

So a choice is a choice, except when it's between a good option and a bad one?

And OHGODOHGOD any moment now somebody's going to say the words F--- W--- and then we're ALL fucked.

Where did I say that?

Your last sentence adds what to the conversation?

One of my first threads was about those dreaded words in the last sentence. It was a bloodbath. So I guess... I was making a funny? Also, we're in the terrortory of 'when is a choice not a choice' whih is when these kind of 'will' issues come up.

Anyway, I think I made my point clearly replying to Nigel but again; To eat, or not to eat is a choice. Even if one option is shithouse. So if you can't agree to that, then we perceive 'choices' differently, and that's OK, but this conversation has nowhere else to go.

If you can't sell your phone, that is when the question of whether or not it is really your phone becomes an issue.  Or if you can't share it, or take it apart and try to figure out how it works.

You certainly do not own any music that might happen to be on your phone, or on a CD in your home for that matter.  You also don't own the apps on the phone.

So it's a pointless semantic argument just for the sake of arguing pointless semantics? OK then.

It may be pointless to you. The topic of 'who owns your time' came up, and to me the way we choose to view this is extremely important.

I think the problem is you are confusing your perceptions with reality. I can have the perception that I am the king of the world, and that perception has absolutely no impact on reality. (See barstool theory)

[Placid Dingo]

So I subjectively own my own time and you objectively own yours. Settled.

[BabylonHoruv]

In my experience, moving closer to the middle actually gives you less ability to control where you want to be one the spectrum. Most shitty jobs, in part because they're shitty, offer a lot of flexibility as to how much you work, especially if you're good at the job. And if a shitty job doesn't allow you the flexibility you need, it's usually not hard to move on to another shitty job (well, maybe not these days, but up until recently). More "respectable" jobs almost all require that you trade away a minimum of 40 hours a week, during specified times, and sometimes require you to make lifestyle adjustments (you need to follow the dress code, be able to pass the drug test, get a haircut, whatever) in return for the paycheck. When I drove a cab, I could work 2 or 3 days a week if I wanted, as long as I was willing to deal with the consequences (eating once a day, not being able to do anything that cost money, occasionally getting utilities shut off because I misjudged how much I'd make on the nights I worked), and there were a lot of times when I did just that to so I could work on personal projects. Now that I have a "real" job, I don't have that option. I'm expected to be here 40 hours a week even if I'd rather have the time to myself instead of the money.

It's not so much "get a better job, you bum." More "re-assess what constitutes 'necessity.'"

But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.

If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.

Not so bad in the US currently, we still have a fairly robust welfare system.

I doubt that will continue much longer, but it is the case at the moment.

It doesn't if you don't have an address.

I'd be shocked to discover that Oregon is doing worse than Ohio in that respect and here if you have children and do not have a home, or cannot afford one, you can live in government subsidized housing, thus getting an address.

There are some restrictions on who can get in, and there is a waiting list, but it's not that long, and aside from the requirement of children the restrictions have to do with drug sales, so if you haven't been convicted of selling drugs you're alright.

Mind you it's not a nice place, and you have to put in nearly a full time work week to qualify for the benefits (that covers medicaid and food stamps too though) but it is a roof over your head and an address so that you can qualify for medicaid and food stamps.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

In my experience, moving closer to the middle actually gives you less ability to control where you want to be one the spectrum. Most shitty jobs, in part because they're shitty, offer a lot of flexibility as to how much you work, especially if you're good at the job. And if a shitty job doesn't allow you the flexibility you need, it's usually not hard to move on to another shitty job (well, maybe not these days, but up until recently). More "respectable" jobs almost all require that you trade away a minimum of 40 hours a week, during specified times, and sometimes require you to make lifestyle adjustments (you need to follow the dress code, be able to pass the drug test, get a haircut, whatever) in return for the paycheck. When I drove a cab, I could work 2 or 3 days a week if I wanted, as long as I was willing to deal with the consequences (eating once a day, not being able to do anything that cost money, occasionally getting utilities shut off because I misjudged how much I'd make on the nights I worked), and there were a lot of times when I did just that to so I could work on personal projects. Now that I have a "real" job, I don't have that option. I'm expected to be here 40 hours a week even if I'd rather have the time to myself instead of the money.

It's not so much "get a better job, you bum." More "re-assess what constitutes 'necessity.'"

But that assessment only works if you have a certain amount of leeway to begin with.

If you are a young single person, it's not that hard to survive on a shitty part-time job. Add kids to the equation and see what happens. And don't give me some facile solution like "then don't have kids" because that's glib bullshit.

Not so bad in the US currently, we still have a fairly robust welfare system.

I doubt that will continue much longer, but it is the case at the moment.

It doesn't if you don't have an address.

I'd be shocked to discover that Oregon is doing worse than Ohio in that respect and here if you have children and do not have a home, or cannot afford one, you can live in government subsidized housing, thus getting an address.

There are some restrictions on who can get in, and there is a waiting list, but it's not that long, and aside from the requirement of children the restrictions have to do with drug sales, so if you haven't been convicted of selling drugs you're alright.

Mind you it's not a nice place, and you have to put in nearly a full time work week to qualify for the benefits (that covers medicaid and food stamps too though) but it is a roof over your head and an address so that you can qualify for medicaid and food stamps.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

Wait

You're talking about OREGON, right? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA

Yes, honey, that's why Oregon doesn't have any homeless people.

As an aside, one of the things I find troubling about your input in this thread is that you act as if being on welfare is somehow not the very thing so many people are fighting to avoid.

[kingyak]

A kerosene heater and sun showers in an apartment? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about? 1. Illegal as fuck, you WILL be evicted if your landlord finds out, and 2. kerosene heaters kill people from carbon monoxide poisoning all the time. WTF, that's completely idiotic.

A house, actually. In this case I know exactly what I'm talking about because I did it for about 4 months (January-March, if memory serves) because paying the $800 to get the gas turned back on would have meant giving up things I wanted more (and even if I'd cut those out, I still would have to live without gas for at least a couple months, so I hoped for the winter to stay mild and started trying to put back enough to turn the gas back on before next fall). I CHOSE to risk the landlord finding out and evicting me (fortunately low-risk in my case, since the landlord was absentee and I CHOSE to risk carbon monoxide (thought did keep a window cracked to cut down on the risk). Not a good choice, or a legal one, a smart one, or one I'd likely make again, but still a choice.

Kids are (mostly) a choice, until you have them. That's why that argument is facile.

Birth control fails, and abortions aren't free, or even cheap. Sometimes people plan to have kids because they're financially stable, and then they get divorced, and then the economy tanks. Sometimes people simply make bad decisions. Regardless, children are born. What would you do if you knocked someone up? Do you have a choice?

But there's still a choice there. Even in the case of failed birth control, there was still a choice to have sex knowing that birth control isn't 100% effective. I'd prefer a world with universal healthcare and a scientific understanding of abortion as a backup plan for when a condom breaks, but until we get that you have to accept that having sex could lead to having a child. The only time a child is not in any way a choice is in cases of rape.

Real life happens. When you see poverty increase, that means that people who were not in poverty before have entered it.

No argument with you there, but you equate bad shit happening to a total loss of control, you're buying into the "victim mentality" that the well-off like to believe affects everyone lower on the spectrum than them.