This article annoyed me.
And here's why.
So the problem with the article is that ....well. Basically the writer's an idiot? I honestly had to read the article three times, cause my my brain kept shutting off at the sheer idiocy.
Problem one: check-cashing service?! Who the fuck needs to use a check cashing service? Employers are legally obligated to provide their employees a way to cash their checks for free. Usually at the employers bank. You do NOT need a bank account for this. If I needed a check cashed from chuck e cheese right away, I walked over to columbia, and they woud cash it. Straight cash. If I needed a check from brookdale cashed right away, I'd walk to Wachovia, and cash it. I didn't need a columbia account (ended up getting one anyway - love their interest rates), and I've never had an account at Wachovia. If the employer isn't providing someone with a way to cash their checks for free, then they're breaking the law, simple as that. Anyone who wastes money on a check cashing service for their job is an idiot. And now I'm getting riled up on the whole, "can't get a bank account" thing. Who the hell can't get a bank account? You have bad credit? Boy, that would be a problem if banks ran credit checks before giving out accounts. Which they DON'T. I'm so annoyed at the stupidity, that I need to italicize AND capitalize. You show up with $50 in your hand, and you can open up a bank account. Done AND done. Now you have a place to deposit your checks.
Problem two: So, what I'm getting is that if someone can't drive a car, they shouldn't be responsible for going to work? And if they can't drive because they got a DUI, well, we're stil supposed to feel bad for them? First of all, people who drive drunk should have their license taken away and why are we supposed to feel sorry for them? They put themself in the situation that led to their loss of license, through an actions that could have endangered a lot of people who were on the road with them. GOOD, I say to that, GOOD. Second of all, a car is not necessary to get to work. WALK. I walked to freakin chuck e cheese's for like, two years! ...bumming rides off people occasionally. But seriously. Walk, take a bus, ride a bike. A car is not the only way to get around.
Problem three: It's implied....or, well, outright stated if you include the quote from another source as part of the article, that there is no possibility to move between classes. This is utter bullshit. Now, the amount of change will be gradual, unless something spectacular happens, but I thought the goal for each generation was to provide a better life for the next generation. Perhaps I wouldn't be so annoyed by this if I didn't see it in action in my own family. My maternal grandmother raised six kids on her own. SIX. On her OWN. I've been to the house she raised those six kids in. It's in a pretty shitty part of town, and it's tiny. I'm amazed that seven people were able to live there. And did my grandmother decide that she was never going to get out of that shitty house, and give up, deciding to live paycheck to paycheck and spend her money on frivolous things? No. She got two jobs, put her kids through school (primary and secondary - she wasn't able to put them through college), kept working after they left home, and when she died, she own three houses. Fuck you if you say people can't move up.
My father's side was similar, except he was an only child being raised by my grandmother (her husband ran out on her when she was expecting - I have some winning males in my family. :-/ ). Again, my grandmother worked her ass off to provide for my dad. Moving on to their family - my parents are by no means wealthy. I worked a minimum wage job for four years in order to put myself through college, taking 18-19 credits a semester because you didn't have to pay per credit after 15 credits (blah blah blah you've heard this before, poor me.). And even though my parents weren't able to directly put me through, they helped me out with what they could. And at no point did my parents say, "we can't afford to put our kids through college, let's just spend every dime we have on things we want right now!" Of COURSE NOT. Cause they're not IDIOTS. They made sacrifices, so that if we needed help, they'd be able to give it to us. So my parents did better than my grandparents, financially. And I assume that with my advantage of being college-educated (which neither of my parents were), that I will be able to do better than them financially. Mercurial rise in one individual is not to be expected, but noticeable changes can be made. And through the generations, unless someone bothces up, your family will get to a point where they are comfortable. The "myth" of upward mobility is only a myth to people who aren't willing to work, and who want people to simply give them handouts.
Problem four: The point of the article is to bash anyone who believes that poor people should be held accountable for their actions. It implies that poor people will always be poor, and should be encouraged to blow their money on anything if it brings them a moment of happiness. Anyone who DARES question the spending habits of the poor is a heartless bastard, because they're not poor themselves, so what would they know? It's stated that people who are not poor believe the poor are not allowed to spend their money on anything not directly related to basic necessities, and should spend absolutely every minute of their time slaving away at their jobs. Eat, sleep, work, is all we think they should be allowed to do, apparently. This is assumed because someone made a comment that someone who's living paycheck to paycheck should probably not be taking in stray animals. A living creature is no small item! It requires food, attention, care. If you're barely making ends meet as it is, are you certain you're going to be abe to give these animals the care they need? And if you're willing to make sacrifices, great, but who's going to get hurt from those sacrifices? If both you and the cat need medicine and you can only afford one, do you buy the cat's, risking your own future health, leading to larger fines and possible hospitalization? Or do you make the cat suffer? This isn't an issue of someone buying a book, or a game. It's another living thing. And if you CAN afford the hospital bills for your cat, without any harmful sacrifices, then are you really as poor as you're suggesting you are?
People should be entitled to live life how they see fit, but that doesn't mean society on the whole needs to approve of it. It could be the logical scientist in my speaking when I say that helping out those who can help themselves is a darwinian instinct. Let's say you can lend a hand to one person, just one, maybe you came into $1000, and you're feeling really generous, and you have two choices, who are we instinctively going to help? Person a who is working two jobs and sacrificing needless creature comforts in order to make a better life for themselves and their kids? or person b, someone who whines about how they have no money, and as soon as they get some, spends it on something that has no value in the long run? And let's say you want to help both, but you can't, for some reason, you can't split up the money at all. You can only choose one. Who are you going to give the money to? The person who's working hard and deserves a break, or the person who's making no strides to better their life, and will probably blow through your money in a week.
What's with the "how dare we question these people!" too? Hey, if they want help, then yeah, I think it's our right to get up all in their business! When you apply for a grant, you don't say, "gimme money!" you say, "please give me money, cause I'm gonna spend it on these beneficial things, and these are some of the things I've done in the past that show you why giving me this money is a good thing."
In conclusion, poor people are not society's problem, stupid lazy whiners are. And we find them in all financial classes. Poor people are not saints. They don't deserve to be given infinite amounts of pity, and we as a society should not smile upon their poor decisions. To me, that's pretty condescending. Here's how it plays out in my mind.
Poor Person: "I got an extra $100 dollars today! I'm gonna spend it all on a new television!"
Middle Class Person: "But don't you already have one?"
PP: "But I want a NEW one! A NEW one will make me happy! Don't you want me to be happy?"
Rich Person (possibly republican...??): "Of course we do! You buy that new television!"
PP: "WHEEE!"
MCP: "But....but maybe you could....save that money? Put it away for later or something? Maybe one day afford to live in a nicer apartment? Have nicer things? Have to work less?"
RP: "SHHH! You'll give away our secrets!"
....of course, as you see from this, I've had some bad experiences with Republicans who believe poor people should receive NO help at all....I'm not against helping people, just against that help going to waste. Hahah, but seriously, I don't honestly consider all rich people bad! That was a joke, really.
Okay, my hands are cramping. So I'm gonna stop here.
And here's why.
So the problem with the article is that ....well. Basically the writer's an idiot? I honestly had to read the article three times, cause my my brain kept shutting off at the sheer idiocy.
Problem one: check-cashing service?! Who the fuck needs to use a check cashing service? Employers are legally obligated to provide their employees a way to cash their checks for free. Usually at the employers bank. You do NOT need a bank account for this. If I needed a check cashed from chuck e cheese right away, I walked over to columbia, and they woud cash it. Straight cash. If I needed a check from brookdale cashed right away, I'd walk to Wachovia, and cash it. I didn't need a columbia account (ended up getting one anyway - love their interest rates), and I've never had an account at Wachovia. If the employer isn't providing someone with a way to cash their checks for free, then they're breaking the law, simple as that. Anyone who wastes money on a check cashing service for their job is an idiot. And now I'm getting riled up on the whole, "can't get a bank account" thing. Who the hell can't get a bank account? You have bad credit? Boy, that would be a problem if banks ran credit checks before giving out accounts. Which they DON'T. I'm so annoyed at the stupidity, that I need to italicize AND capitalize. You show up with $50 in your hand, and you can open up a bank account. Done AND done. Now you have a place to deposit your checks.
Problem two: So, what I'm getting is that if someone can't drive a car, they shouldn't be responsible for going to work? And if they can't drive because they got a DUI, well, we're stil supposed to feel bad for them? First of all, people who drive drunk should have their license taken away and why are we supposed to feel sorry for them? They put themself in the situation that led to their loss of license, through an actions that could have endangered a lot of people who were on the road with them. GOOD, I say to that, GOOD. Second of all, a car is not necessary to get to work. WALK. I walked to freakin chuck e cheese's for like, two years! ...bumming rides off people occasionally. But seriously. Walk, take a bus, ride a bike. A car is not the only way to get around.
Problem three: It's implied....or, well, outright stated if you include the quote from another source as part of the article, that there is no possibility to move between classes. This is utter bullshit. Now, the amount of change will be gradual, unless something spectacular happens, but I thought the goal for each generation was to provide a better life for the next generation. Perhaps I wouldn't be so annoyed by this if I didn't see it in action in my own family. My maternal grandmother raised six kids on her own. SIX. On her OWN. I've been to the house she raised those six kids in. It's in a pretty shitty part of town, and it's tiny. I'm amazed that seven people were able to live there. And did my grandmother decide that she was never going to get out of that shitty house, and give up, deciding to live paycheck to paycheck and spend her money on frivolous things? No. She got two jobs, put her kids through school (primary and secondary - she wasn't able to put them through college), kept working after they left home, and when she died, she own three houses. Fuck you if you say people can't move up.
My father's side was similar, except he was an only child being raised by my grandmother (her husband ran out on her when she was expecting - I have some winning males in my family. :-/ ). Again, my grandmother worked her ass off to provide for my dad. Moving on to their family - my parents are by no means wealthy. I worked a minimum wage job for four years in order to put myself through college, taking 18-19 credits a semester because you didn't have to pay per credit after 15 credits (blah blah blah you've heard this before, poor me.). And even though my parents weren't able to directly put me through, they helped me out with what they could. And at no point did my parents say, "we can't afford to put our kids through college, let's just spend every dime we have on things we want right now!" Of COURSE NOT. Cause they're not IDIOTS. They made sacrifices, so that if we needed help, they'd be able to give it to us. So my parents did better than my grandparents, financially. And I assume that with my advantage of being college-educated (which neither of my parents were), that I will be able to do better than them financially. Mercurial rise in one individual is not to be expected, but noticeable changes can be made. And through the generations, unless someone bothces up, your family will get to a point where they are comfortable. The "myth" of upward mobility is only a myth to people who aren't willing to work, and who want people to simply give them handouts.
Problem four: The point of the article is to bash anyone who believes that poor people should be held accountable for their actions. It implies that poor people will always be poor, and should be encouraged to blow their money on anything if it brings them a moment of happiness. Anyone who DARES question the spending habits of the poor is a heartless bastard, because they're not poor themselves, so what would they know? It's stated that people who are not poor believe the poor are not allowed to spend their money on anything not directly related to basic necessities, and should spend absolutely every minute of their time slaving away at their jobs. Eat, sleep, work, is all we think they should be allowed to do, apparently. This is assumed because someone made a comment that someone who's living paycheck to paycheck should probably not be taking in stray animals. A living creature is no small item! It requires food, attention, care. If you're barely making ends meet as it is, are you certain you're going to be abe to give these animals the care they need? And if you're willing to make sacrifices, great, but who's going to get hurt from those sacrifices? If both you and the cat need medicine and you can only afford one, do you buy the cat's, risking your own future health, leading to larger fines and possible hospitalization? Or do you make the cat suffer? This isn't an issue of someone buying a book, or a game. It's another living thing. And if you CAN afford the hospital bills for your cat, without any harmful sacrifices, then are you really as poor as you're suggesting you are?
People should be entitled to live life how they see fit, but that doesn't mean society on the whole needs to approve of it. It could be the logical scientist in my speaking when I say that helping out those who can help themselves is a darwinian instinct. Let's say you can lend a hand to one person, just one, maybe you came into $1000, and you're feeling really generous, and you have two choices, who are we instinctively going to help? Person a who is working two jobs and sacrificing needless creature comforts in order to make a better life for themselves and their kids? or person b, someone who whines about how they have no money, and as soon as they get some, spends it on something that has no value in the long run? And let's say you want to help both, but you can't, for some reason, you can't split up the money at all. You can only choose one. Who are you going to give the money to? The person who's working hard and deserves a break, or the person who's making no strides to better their life, and will probably blow through your money in a week.
What's with the "how dare we question these people!" too? Hey, if they want help, then yeah, I think it's our right to get up all in their business! When you apply for a grant, you don't say, "gimme money!" you say, "please give me money, cause I'm gonna spend it on these beneficial things, and these are some of the things I've done in the past that show you why giving me this money is a good thing."
In conclusion, poor people are not society's problem, stupid lazy whiners are. And we find them in all financial classes. Poor people are not saints. They don't deserve to be given infinite amounts of pity, and we as a society should not smile upon their poor decisions. To me, that's pretty condescending. Here's how it plays out in my mind.
Poor Person: "I got an extra $100 dollars today! I'm gonna spend it all on a new television!"
Middle Class Person: "But don't you already have one?"
PP: "But I want a NEW one! A NEW one will make me happy! Don't you want me to be happy?"
Rich Person (possibly republican...??): "Of course we do! You buy that new television!"
PP: "WHEEE!"
MCP: "But....but maybe you could....save that money? Put it away for later or something? Maybe one day afford to live in a nicer apartment? Have nicer things? Have to work less?"
RP: "SHHH! You'll give away our secrets!"
....of course, as you see from this, I've had some bad experiences with Republicans who believe poor people should receive NO help at all....I'm not against helping people, just against that help going to waste. Hahah, but seriously, I don't honestly consider all rich people bad! That was a joke, really.
Okay, my hands are cramping. So I'm gonna stop here.
posted by K. | 4:45 PM
|
0 comments
