Strollerderby

"I have seen what some of the working poor waste their money on."

(*cough*)

Actually, hand, she's right.

The people whom I have worked with through shop with a cop, and thanksgiving and christmas food deliveries through local food pantries more often than not have televisions far larger than mine, videogame consols, and myriad other small vanities that don't come with a small price tag.

The reason many people are working poor is because they do not know how to budget. This doesn't make them bad people. It just goes to show the way America's value system has de-evolved into the slimy pool it is now.

I watch my in-laws go through the same woorking poor cycle. It's depressing. They work very low-paying jobs, then spend too much on bingo, cable, and eating out, then don't pay their rent or the electricity bill. My MIL laughed at us when we went to Costco and bought a twelve pack of CFLs and 30 pounds of rice, but we for cheap and our energy bills are half of theirs, and we live in a much bigger place than them.

My mother lives in rural Montana, and she works at an elementary school. They have a dozen or so families that all get free lunches, and most of them go out and buy ATVs and new rifles for hunting season, then send their kids to school in flip flops in January because they can't afford shoes.

I think I understand what you're talking about, Jeanne, but I hate to see the poorest members of our society -- who had the LEAST responsibility in bringing about this nightmare -- blamed for it.  While I'm sure we can all think of examples of poor people who waste their money, keep in mind that most struggling Americans are doing the best they can with what little they have.  

Can we all stop judging each other's spending habits, or at least if we're going to judge spending habits, look up towards the wealthy instead of down at the poor? I don't know about you, but I find it a lot more upsetting that there are people who can afford things far more expensive than an ATV or a hunting rifle while there are hungry children in this country. Sure, a lot of poor people don't spend their money wisely - but being poor doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to enjoy life, or, god forbid, make mistakes.

Everyone, regardless of their station in life, deserves the little joys in life AND food in their children's bellies. Not just one or the other.

I have to disagree. I've watched my parents scrimp and save in order to send me to college. Now that they are in a more stable financial state, they can indulge. Its not about denying anyone the small things in life that make you happy, but I highly doubt people who are on WIC for example, need ATVs.

The crisis we are in is all about what happened at the top. I'll agree to that. But the working poor have been in this position long before the crash, and I can only see it getting worse unless there is a serious priority shift in this country.

When we pay our in-laws rent at least a couple of times a year, I get to judge them for their poor decisions. They should be able to make basic financial decisions and not burden their children with providing for them before it's necessary. My husband works at a cable company so we can afford to have cable, internet, and phone service. We clip coupons, we don't eat out often, and we shop hard to afford what we have. We know we can't afford to go to the movies or buy an ATV, so we don't do it.

It's not that people who are having financial problems shouldn't get to have some fun, but they also need to be responsible. You can go to the library and rent movies for free. If you subscribe to cable or satellite, a lot of companies offers free movies on demand, without a movie channel subscription, even. We clip coupons, and once in awhile, we'll take the thirty bucks we saved and eat out. There's a discount movie theatre in the next town over that has 50 cent Tuesdays that shows slightly older releases. It's a nice distraction, and it's way cheaper than seeing a new release.

I think the problem is that people have gotten used to being comfortable financially, and it's hard to cut back when you need to. It made me sad to stop having bimonthly date nights with my husband, but I want to keep my house. Knowing your priorities is part of being a responsible adult.

"But to be complaining about a lack of extra income and stating you "need" the movie channels in your cable package because they're the only source of entertainment you have is ridiculous. You could save $20 a month by using the library to get the same movies for free."

Yeah, I was actually someone who said that my cable package is my only source of entertainment. I think it's pretty uncool to crap all over this just because you feel defensive. Money is tight. I want my cable, so I cut back in other areas AND I took on a part-time job in addition to the full-time one I work. I'm a non-profit employee. I bust my butt every day for a meager wage. If I want to sit on my arse and watch True Blood and Dexter, then that's my perogative. I'm not complaining about the cost. It's something that's important to me and my husband. If it's not important to you, that's cool, but why the attitude and sanctimony??? We all have to decide what is important to us. Yes, I love my cable and my TIVO. I'd rather give up trips to restaurants than get rid of those things. And guess what? I pay my taxes every year, my mortgage payment has NEVER been late, and I'm fiscally responsible. I usually enjoy reading your posts, Jeanne, but this one really rubbed me the wrong way.

And just FYI, my husband and I have saved a lot of money by making baby food for our daughter. If being labeled a "yuppie" offends you THAT MUCH, by all means defend yourself, but don't do it at the expense of others.

This is an offensive post.  The sanctimony is disgusting.

Ok, we're cool Jeanne. I see your point and accept your apology.  I do have pms now, so I may have reacted more emotionally than usual :-)

Get over yourself.

During the financially leaner years of my life, I couldn't afford the bus far to GET to the library.   There was no cable package to "scale back."  There were no movie visits, new or otherwise. We were already using rags instead of paper towels.  There were no new clothes.

Like Chicken said... sanctimonius and offensive.  Mostly, though, just plain clueless and haughty.

Your list is Yuppie, because it makes the assumption that your audience already has classes, and holiday sweaters, and  meat, and bottled water to cut.  And a LOT of people don't.  So, your list is pretty much useless to them.

The comment about what working poor spend their money on is offensive and not at all reflective of what actually happens. I work with very poor kids in the inner city, and we take classes learning about the culture of poverty. One of the things to know is that when you are truly poor (and not sanctimoniously yuppie poor as the author seems to be) and you get money, you spend it because you do not know when the next round of money is coming. Because you have no money, you do not know how to use it.

The fancy TVs and debt of the working poor are not a reflection of poor spending habits and an inability to see the future - it's a reflection of the day-to-day survival mentality that is necessary when you are really and truly poor. When you get money, you get the most out of it, when you don't have it, well, then you get by. And when you've lived your whole life like that, it's hard to learn new habits.

And having been very poor myself at one point or another, I get this. I got an unexpected windfall once and spent it on a new, expensive bedspread I wanted but did not need instead of putting it into a savings account. I had money, I spent it. That's what happens when you are working poor.

Let me just say that I do not condone buying expensive items when you have little money - but I think a little more nuance could be given to the issue instead of a snap judgment on how the working poor spend their money.

I am wildly offended by the notion that a poor person spending $500 on an ATV is "as much of a problem" as Wall Street mistakes that cost thousands of Americans their homes. Poor people did not sink this economy. Millionaires did. On what planet are the spending habits of the poor and the current economic crash remotely related?

Furthermore, implying that because I defended the working poor, I must be a poor waster of money is wildly inappropriate. You know nothing about me, or my finances, or my values. (Hint: I probably have far more familiarity with thrift stores than you do.) You owe me, and the rest of your readers, an apology.

I think those are tips for a person who would like to save money, not a truly working poor person.  And as far as Etsy goes, most stuff I see on there is nice but way expensive.

"I am wildly offended by the notion that a poor person spending $500 on an ATV is "as much of a problem" as Wall Street mistakes that cost thousands of Americans their homes."

Word, Bunny.  It makes me really sad to see people already blaming the poor and most powerless people in our society instead of the people who directly caused this meltdown -- corrupt politicians and billionaires.  Congress clearing away all the regulations that kept us safe and the billionaires on Wall Street jumping in to make a mint are examples of things that have sunk us.  Poor people buying a few luxuries?  It would be laughable if there weren't people who believed it.

Thanks, Knitty.

Historians are going to be debating the sort of statements you made in that first paragraph for decades, Jeanne.  I strongly suspect that when all the cards are in, it will be very clear that the people who reaped the most benefit from the bailouts will be the people at the very top... as the people at the very top always do.  Also, we are a LONG way from our entire financial system being rescued.  That was the theory, but isn't yet to become a reality.  Banks are still going under every day, credit is still tight, and the expected trickle-down benefits aren't happening yet.  In fact, at this point, the entire plan changes on a weekly basis because nothing is working as hoped.

Seems to me the sanctimony is on the other side of the fence from Jeanne. Nowhere did I see her trying to say the unwise spending habits of the poor are worse than the greedy moneygrubbing of the rich. She was lamenting bad spending habits by people who choose material gifts over childcare -- a legitimate problem that cannot be swept under the rug simply because we all are angrier with the swindling of America by its top moneymakers and politicians.

Explaining the actions of the poor as "they don't know better" sounds rather sanctimonious actually, but I'll accept that reasoning so long as it isn't used to excuse such activity. If we as America have the public funds to throw at our poor, we also have the responsibility to use those hard-earned dollars to educate people on how to budget and resist impulse buying for their better good.

If someone is working and spending the money they earn as they see fit, fine. But if they're taking advantage of government programs on the taxpayer's dime, I -- as one of those taxpayers -- see no problem with demanding the recipients of those public dollars demonstrate personal and social responsibility with those funds. To do otherwise is simply perpetuating the very factors that keep people in poverty, and THAT'S where we should all be offended.

Wow, I bet it's hard to keep that halo from falling off when you're looking down on the little people! Seriously, I understand what you're trying to say because I have felt the same way, but I always remind myself that I don't know the full story of someone else's life AND I would surely hate to have the same people I judge follow me around for a day because I can flat guarantee there would be a lot of eye-rolling going on (from them.) I get frustrated when I see a family standing in line at the food bank with Blackberries in their hands and loading up their brand new SUV's, but then I remember how much money I just spent on some frivolous things and then complained how expensive food is getting, so I just shut my mouth and let live.  

"But if they're taking advantage of government programs on the taxpayer's dime, I -- as one of those taxpayers -- see no problem with demanding the recipients of those public dollars demonstrate personal and social responsibility with those funds."

Okay, so we're on the same page - we want people using billions of our dollars (corporations getting corporate welfare) to demonstrate personal and social responsibility with those funds.

Oh wait, you're talking about the people who are getting a few thin dimes from the government, because you like looking down on the poor and feeling superior.

Just how much do you really think welfare costs you, individually? Maybe you should look it up. It's not much.

Yes, Bunny and Mommashay, we ARE on the same page with people misusing billions of tax dollars. It's a travesty of justice, and we all have a right -- a civic duty -- to be incensed and taking action.

Moral and logical consistency demand we ask the same of people misusing just a few "thin dimes" of public funds. It's not "looking down on the little people" -- at least, no more so than looking down on the "big people," which is illogically somehow more "OK."

Abuse is abuse, and the poor are no more entitled to take advantage of others than the rich are. It's a travesty of justice, regardless of degree, and with more innovative ideas and less judgmental assumptions (i.e., the divisive "superiority" argument), we can work together toward making life better for everyone, instead of reducing the discussion to the utterly useless "I care more for poor people than YOU do."

In other words, I really am on your side!