(I'm not officially signing up for Hollidailies, but I am going to make an effort to post a blog entry every day in December. Here's today's.)
My son James and I ducked into Wal-Mart tonight to grab a few things, including a new game he was lusting after. (Any game he mentions is immediately followed by the phrase "that I really, really want" to the point where now we say it with him in joyous harmony)
Loaded up on dog food, cat food, some groceries, socks, and other sundries, grabbed his game of desire, and settled down to wait in the holiday rush of the entertainment area register. Also to recover from the effort of not getting nailed by the hordes of shoppers who were all apparently under the impression that wherever they wanted to steer their heavily loaded carts was the right of way. Or else we were just invisible, I didn't check. After the fifth time I hurt my shoulders pulling my cart to an abrupt halt to avoid the person rushing past me (and not one of them acknowledged my presence at any point) I decided the massed shoppers of Wal-Mart quite simply wanted to hit me with their carts so I just settled on getting in and out of there alive.
Which was why I was cheered when a pleasant looking woman excused herself and reached past us to grab a rebate or coupon or something from the register where we were waiting, then joined another woman to walk away. She was polite! The social compact still exists! My faith in humanity is renewed!
Then she stopped. And gave a disgusted grunt, and said, and I quote: "It's not in American!" She reached past us again - no "excuse me" this time -- and flipped through all the rebates. All in Spanish. I thought that was silly of Wal-Mart, and figured there was another pack somewhere. No worries.
She reacted somewhat differently, throwing the card in the air. It flipped up and came down near a large man waiting to talk to the cellphone guy. He picked it up and looked at it as the women came around to the other register to see if there was an "American" pack there (there wasn't). He responded by taking the entire pad of rebates off the rack and dropping it into the garbage can behind the registers, saying "There's what I think of that."
James and I decided that the garden register was more to our liking and left.
It is startling to see open bigotry (and rudeness) displayed like that, and it's a brusque reminder that there are idiots everywhere. It did make for an interesting conversation on the way home ("What is 'written in American,' anyway? Were the rebates supposed to be in Apache?").
It did help me understand the other shoppers, though. I really wanted to hit them with a cart.
[ December 03, 2007, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Keep 'em coming, Chris!
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I can't find your blog. Do I have to be a MySpace member to see it?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, it's set to be visible to the public. Can you see my profile at all?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It gets even more fun when you call public idiots on their idiocy publicly. My most recent story happened in Publix (a supermarket chain in the southeast US) on a Friday night. It was pretty busy, though, no surprise there. I only had a few items, so I avoided the longer checkout lines and instead went up to customer service. Long lines there, too, but of people with two or three things or a lotto ticket or a paycheck, as opposed to a cartful of groceries.
This one jackass a line over from me had gotten up to the register, and I listened to him be a schmuck to one of the employees at the register. At first it was loudly scoffing/harumphing when the phone rang and she had to answer it (this took about five seconds), and then she had to get a set of currency for someone at one of the registers (this took about twenty seconds), and then I think she had to get a carton of cigarettes for someone else.
Tiresome, sure, but we'd been in line for no more than five minutes tops. Then the idiot gets up front and wants to cash his paycheck, and complains because he's never done that before, and Publix makes you verify stuff and fill out a card with your information. I had to do that back in high school, and it does take a few minutes.
The jackass continues mumbling and grumbling in that stupid way people get, a sort of verbal pouting. Loudly tapping his hand on the desk, jingling his keys, looking around with exagerrated facial expressions, etc. At this point he's turned my brief stay in the line from an exercise in weary tedium into a continuation of aggravation, which I thought I'd escaped for the weekend. After being unable to verify his employment (naturally, being a Friday night), he complained that he'd been there for "at least" twenty minutes waiting.
The look on his face when I told him, "Cut the bull@#%, man, you've been in this line two or three minutes just like me and everyone else here," was delightful, and almost made the exasperating experience of waiting in an annoying line worthwhile.
I liken it to the way some people behave on the Internet, or in their cars in traffic. For some reason, sometimes, people get it in their heads that around strangers, around people they never expect to see again, they can say and do anything they want. My anecdote has no bigotry, though, just stupidity, and so is deficient in that and other ways to yours.
"Speak American, damnit!" *snicker*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Chris, the first link didn't work for me either, but I was able to get there from your profile. Does this work for you, Icky? Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Sure does, Rivka. Thanks! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Edited the link. Thanks Rivka!
Posted by Sergeant (Member # 8749) on :
Why not have our own language anyway? The Montenegrins have declared that Montenegrin is now a language even though it is essentially Serbian and a Serbian speaker probably has an easier time understanding someone speaking "Montenegrin" than I do understanding someone speaking English from Scotland or some other areas of the U.K.
So, just like the Army sometimes does, instead of fixing the problem we lower the standard. Then all of the silly people in the U.S. that say the "speak American" won't be wrong jk
I've had to endure an entire 1 credit class this semester talking about the rights of people to speak their own language. As one of the few Americans in the class I've come to realize that we have a different world view than the central and eastern Europeans and I understand a bit more why the US isn't always ready to jump on board all of the international human rights treaties. Some of the treaties have interesting ideas of what is a "right".
Sergeant
(Removes tounge from cheek)
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Huh?
Say that in English, please.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It gets even more fun when you call public idiots on their idiocy publicly. My most recent story happened in Publix.
*chortles*
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Huh?
Say that in English, please.
Why? He said it in American.
( )
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:("What is 'written in American,' anyway? Were the rebates supposed to be in Apache?").
*chuckles* I like that.
My grandpa, one of the sweetest, most honest, nicest men you'll ever meet always does that "why aren't they speaking American?" thing whenever he hears someone speaking Spanish (which may have gotten worse since he moved to Houston, I'm not sure about the demographics). He's never rude about it, never in your face about it, it's just something he jokes about around family. My uncle on the other hand is the in your face rudely bigoted type.
There's certainly degrees of severity.
It takes a bit for me to correct a stranger in public, as while I'm generally not meek, I'm also not overly forthright to strangers. Possibly in Rakeesh's situation I might have said something, as I feel a bit more bold when an innocent bystander is getting the business end of someone's hissy fit. I've done it once in recent memory, when I was at a restaurant and the person behind me at another table was complaining VERY LOUDLY that her food was wrong, even though she ordered what was on the menu, and from the sound of her complaint, she just hadn't read what was actually IN the item before ordering it. She then proclaimed that the waittress would not be getting a tip because of it. Against my better judgement I turned around and explained to her that A. She misread the menu. And B. If she refused to tip, then not only would the server not get paid, the server would literally be PAYING to wait on her, for several reasons relating to taxes and very low hourly pay for servers. I was going to go into a spiel and ask her how she'd feel if she worked customer service and a customer didn't like her service because of someone else's fault, and then she had to PAY to have someone be rude to her. But I decided to leave it at that, and when I left I saw that she had left a tip. Not a good one, but something.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The only times folks speaking Spanish bothers me is when it's a group of men sitting around leering at me. Apparently, leering in Spanish makes it so I can't figure out what they're doing.
But I consider that a subset of general rudeness. It's more the being alone with a crowd of creepy men that gets to me then.
I'm also not bold enough to want to start some drama with someone being rude, but I always commiserate with the cashier afterwards. The way I figured it while waitressing, 1/4 of people are just mean and another 1/4 are vultures looking to profit from your mistake.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Especially concerning to me is the recent idea of language regulation through the declaration of an “official language.” My own county, Spotsylvania County in Virginia, shamefully approved such a thing.
There is nothing more appalling than the degradation of language– any language– for the purposes of political gain.
I know it’s hyperbolic– I know it’s melodramatic– but I can’t help remembering the concept of language as expressed in Orwell’s 1984. That one day, all expression, all thought, all communication will be able to be summed up by two words: Big Brother. I’m afraid– perhaps baselessly– that this movement to route other languages elsewhere, is the first step to that sort of final solution.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
This is a fascinating from a socio-linguistic standpoint, whether people really are starting to call American English "American." I guess that's what we get for changing the course title from "English" to "Language Arts."
It would be cool if in "Language Arts" was like Martial Arts or Deadly Arts.
"Give me 50 sarcastic rejoinders and give them to me now!"
"Whatever, Sensei!"
But, yeah, I wouldn't dispute that from a prescriptivist standpoint, her behavior demostrated an ironic ignorance.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
While I certainly think the people in Chris' story over-reacted, I also understand frustration at not being able to obtain something you need in English.
Not because I'm bigoted, not because I'm a jerk, but because while it's not on the books as our "official" language, it is the language used in government and commerce in this nation and it is not wrong to expect that rebate coupons or whatever in a store the size of WalMart would be available in English and it's completely understandable to be frustrated when you cannot find such coupon.
I have no problem with offering them ALSO in Spanish, but English ones should be available.
Given that, I'm certain they were just out and had the woman asked for a rebate coupon in English I feel very confident WalMart could have gotten one for her. Throwing them all away was an act of extreme jerkitude on the part of the man in the story, but I do sympathize with the woman's frustration, especially in a busy time of year with lots of people running around and so much on our schedules, it does feel sometimes like the world is out to get you and even a simple thing like not being able to locate a rebate coupon you can read will send you over the edge.
Likewise, I'm sure it's frustrating for people who speak only Spanish to not find things they can read, which is why it's great to have multiple languages available. The best solution is of course, to have the items printed in both languages or to have both languages displayed side by side so it's easy for customers to locate what they need.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
But a large element of rebate strategy is to make it difficult for the rebate to be claimed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Unnecessary. Simple laziness on the consumers' parts takes care of that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
In Canada we have the interesting situation that despite being officially bilingual its hard to find a single francaphone that can speak english, and when you challenge them on that there like "Canada is bilingual you should speak French!"
And should be able to equally speak English too buddy.
When jobs ask for bilingual people they dont actually want bilignual people they just want someone whose a native french speaker and to hell with it if they cannot speak english.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I do think Wal-Mart should have had English versions next to the Spanish ones. There was no clerk at the register at the time -- that's what I was waiting for -- and I'm sure they would have been produced with an apology. But still... geez.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Throwing them all away was an act of extreme jerkitude on the part of the man in the story...
Not to mention vandalism.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: The best solution is of course, to have the items printed in both languages or to have both languages displayed side by side so it's easy for customers to locate what they need.
This is what we do in Canada, but it's a legal requirement that such things be in both official languages. Optionally I believe some government offices also provide service in other languages depending on local demographics.
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: In Canada we have the interesting situation that despite being officially bilingual its hard to find a single francaphone that can speak english...
I bet that as a percentage there are more functionally bilingual Francophones than Anglophones. I've never encountered someone born west of Ontario who could speak even halfway decent French, whereas I've never had communication problems with a Francophone outside of France.
And actually, Statistics Canada suggests that I'm right. For all of Canada except Quebec, the percentage of people who speak English only is 87.5%. For Quebec, the percentage of people who speak French only is 53.8%.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
It would have made me laugh if the coupons were printed in English on the other side.
Though, I must say, if Wal-mart is offering bigots, they're likely a cheaper variety than you'll find elsewhere. Hopefully, with the way Wal-Mart does business, it will ultimately make it impossible for other stores to stock bigots and remain economically viable... perhaps, they will bankrupt the world of bigots altogether. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: And actually, Statistics Canada suggests that I'm right. For all of Canada except Quebec, the percentage of people who speak English only is 87.5%. For Quebec, the percentage of people who speak French only is 53.8%.
I was wondering about that statistic before I clicked on the link. 87.5% of people speaking English only seemed rather high, but that link only measures the two official languages.
So I'd add the following clarification. I would think that a decent non-trivial proportion of that 87.5% would know another language and do not speak "English only", just not *French.*
On the same topic, if I recall, there was a pretty unfair situation in Quebec a few years back (it may have been changed via the courts). The situation was that while native Anglophones in Quebec could have their children taught in English, recent immigrants were forced to have their children taught in French *only* even if they already knew English in order to appease the French that felt they were being swamped by English-speakers, despite the fact that both are official languages anyways.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Rather silly. It ain't as if an American would be caught dead shopping in a Wal*Mart.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Though, I must say, if Wal-mart is offering bigots, they're likely a cheaper variety than you'll find elsewhere.
Of course, it's only a matter of time before we find out that they all contain lead or some other hazardous chemical and have to be recalled.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
It occured to me the other night that Wal-mart = Red State, Target = Blue State. Is that totally off base? Doesn't Oprah rather like Target?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: Though, I must say, if Wal-mart is offering bigots, they're likely a cheaper variety than you'll find elsewhere.
Of course, it's only a matter of time before we find out that they all contain lead or some other hazardous chemical and have to be recalled.
You say that as though putting lead into bigots is a bad thing.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
ppoka, I don't think it's accurate because of any political reasons. Target started in Minnesota and spread from there, and Wal-Mart started in Arkansas and spread from there. So there are more Wal-Marts in the south and more Targets in the north. Target was also owned by the Dayton Hudson company, which then bought Marshell Fields, which was based in Chicago. So Target would have hit Chicago before Wal-Mart did, and Oprah is likely to have become familiar with it first and prefer it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I thought it was because Target is more design oriented, while Walmart is more cost oriented. Anway, no biggie. It was just something that occured to me as I gazed in disappointment at the pants I bought from Target as we were running through on Black Friday.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: It occured to me the other night that Wal-mart = Red State, Target = Blue State. Is that totally off base? Doesn't Oprah rather like Target?
They cater to different economic demographics. The average income of Target customers is $58,000; for WalMart customers it's $38,000.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, it's cuz Target has always been MUCH more employee-oriented and MUCH more community-oriented than Wal*Mart. And Wal*Mart had a BAD reputation under SamWalton as far as minority hiring practices.
[ December 03, 2007, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
WOW, that high? I didn't know both companies attracted people that far over the median individual income.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:WOW, that high? I didn't know both companies attracted people that far over the median individual income.
Apples and oranges, since we don't know what the median income of Target and WalMart customers is.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
The thing is, if WalMart sold bigots, it'd be a fair bet that there were made in China.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"The thing is, if WalMart sold bigots, it'd be a fair bet that there were made in China."
Yep, another reason that Americans don't shop at Wal*Mart.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I've seen an alternate claim that the numbers were $35,000 and $75,000. In any case, if you've got both of them in close proximity(we do here) it's clear that Target is more "upscale" than WalMart. They have a smaller selection of higher-priced products.
It's just averages though. Most of the people I know, regardless of their income level, do most of their shopping at WalMart.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Yep, another reason that Americans don't shop at Wal*Mart.
Huh?
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You say that as though putting lead into bigots is a bad thing.
That sounds awfully violent.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Yeah. Huh?
Posted by Pegasus (Member # 10464) on :
My guess is that aspectre is pointing out that there are no reasons why Americans don't shop at Wal*Mart, despite having many reasons not to.
My sarcastimeter is tuned pretty well, being born, raised, and residing in New England.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yep. "If Wal*Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China's eighth-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada." Yet Wal*Mart shoppers are far more likely to: Complain about China's military build-up, which is being funded by Chinese trade surpluses resulting from exporting American jobs over to China. Support breaches of the Constitution and HUGE federal expenditures to "fight the War on Terror", and oppose measures to reduce the American dependence on the oil imports which fund terrorism. Etc ad nauseum... So there's an inherent irony in Wal*Mart shoppers going berserk over coupons not being "American".
Admittedly, Wal*Mart has made major improvements in most areas since SamWalton died... ...but the political divide between Wal*Mart shoppers and boycotters still lingers.
[ December 03, 2007, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:
quote:You say that as though putting lead into bigots is a bad thing.
That sounds awfully violent.
Nothin' violent about sniffin' NASCAR tailpipes, and tarn near as good as moonshine fer raisin' yer brain's lead level.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I used to be so good at avoiding Walmart, but now that I have learned to sew and enjoy it, I am sucked in. I can either go just down the street to buy stuff or I can go 20 miles to the nearest fabric store. Now I have to decide which does the greater harm to the world- roundtrip 40 miles- so over a gallon of gas, plus emissions or shopping at walmart.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Like I said, there have been major improvements in most areas since the death of SamWalton and his fanatical dedication toward turning America into a ThirdWorld country. Kinda hard to remain mad when Wal*Mart takes the lead in eg getting energy-efficient lightbulbs into people's homes.
And I ain't even about to recommend one be a limousine liberal driving his monster truck to environmental rallies, which is what driving absurdly-extra miles to avoid Wal*Mart amounts to. Treating political posturing as more important than the effects of ones actions is just further proof that ideology is for idiots.
[ December 03, 2007, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
There are more Targets in urban areas. There are more Wal*Mart stores in Rural areas.
People in Urban areas make more money because they need more money to live in those expensive places.
Personally, I think it's lovely that poor people have a place where they can get inexpensive goods. I'm not poor and I still shop at Wal*Mart because I love the prices. You anti Wal*Mart bigots can go pay twice as much for the same junk somewhere else.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: It would have made me laugh if the coupons were printed in English on the other side.
That possibility had occurred to me as well.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: You anti Wal*Mart bigots can go pay twice as much for the same junk somewhere else.
It's actually very often (slightly) higher-quality junk somewhere else. But I appreciate your permission.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: When jobs ask for bilingual people they dont actually want bilignual people they just want someone whose a native french speaker and to hell with it if they cannot speak english.
Not in my experience in the west. Government employees in particular in the west, in my experience, have to be fluent in both languages and are generally native English speakers.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Couple things:
quote:I can either go just down the street to buy stuff or I can go 20 miles to the nearest fabric store.
The difficulty is, that's exactly what will make that nearest fabric store close its doors in a couple of years. Better quality, better service, better associate knowledge, and (often) better selection loses out to... saving a few bucks.
Not worth it to me. I have driven 20+ miles to go to local or specialty stores rather than going to Walmart - I don't really think of the comparison of it being "farther", because Walmart isn't even on my list of options. Then again, living in northern New Jersey, there are plenty of options. If I lived in an area where WalMart had already driven all the nearby smaller stores out of business.... I'd probably have to pay a lot more for gas each month.
quote:You anti Wal*Mart bigots can go pay twice as much for the same junk somewhere else.
Thing is, more often than not, it's *not* the same junk. Companies make a separate, lesser quality product for WalMart. For example, Levi could not sell its product at the price WalMart wanted to sell it and still make any profit - so they created a separate line of Levi jeans that had lower quality and lower production costs that they could sell at WalMart. Snapper lawnmowers refused to sell at WalMart, because they could not sell their machine at the price WalMart wanted to sell it and they refused to make a lesser quality product as WalMart suggested.
You may get a cheaper product at purchase, but if you're replacing it sooner what's the point? My roommate bought icicle christmas lights from Walmart for a "great" price... then ended up buying three such sets over two years because they stopped working. Wouldn't it have made more sense to buy a better quality product for a little more the first time?
Call me whatever you like, I don't shop at WalMart.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Personally, I think it's lovely that poor people have a place where they can get inexpensive goods.
Agreed. Often the higher quality goods are not an option - it doesn't matter if it's a better idea if you can't afford it, and you shouldn't have to take out a loan to buy school clothes for kids who will outgrow them before they wear out.
Thank heavens I can buy work-okay clothes at Wal-Mart and Target because if I had to pay Ann Taylor prices every time I'd have two pairs of pants and one sweater.
I think there's more than a small element of classism in the constant disparagement of Wal-Mart quality. There's a reason much of advertising is called aspirational.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:I think there's more than a small element of classism in the constant disparagement of Wal-Mart quality.
For something that you don't expect to last, I have no problem justifying buying an inferior product. But, if someone were to tell me I could get a paper mache house at half the price, I'd tell them to go peddle their junk elsewhere.
If I need to buy something, I'm willing to spend extra to get something that will be worth the money - rather than spending less for something that isn't. Spend $100 on something that will give me many returns on that money over the years, or spend $70 on something that will break and need to be replaced. In the long run, I'd have to spend $140 for the same longevity as something I could have paid $100 for up front.
Buying poorly made products is shortsighted, but quality isn't the only reason to avoid WalMart. The list is long.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In the long run, I'd have to spend $140 for the same longevity as something I could have paid $100 for up front.
The inability of many people to spend the extra money up front is a significant factor in many people's inability to lift themselves out of poverty.
It is almost certainly cheaper in the long run to buy a low-end washing machine and dryer than to go to the laundrymat each week. Yet this option is not available unless one can come up with the up-front capital needed. One can either save or borrow to do this. Both cost significant amounts of money - saving requires using the laundrymat while saving up, and borrowing requires interest payments.
Obviously the difference is greater between laundrymat/washing machine ownership than between $70 and a $100 dollars. But the basic phenomenon is the same - the lack of financial resources causes people to spend more than needed to accomplish necessary tasks.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
If you only have $70 to spend, it doesn't matter than paying almost 50% more will get you a better product.
Sure, paying $140 over a longer period costs more than paying $100 up front, but if you only have $70 at the time, that's the way to go. Paying for school out of pocket instead of taking out student loans would make more monetary sense in the long run, but if you don't have the cash to do it and taking out a loan is the only way to enter the door, it doesn't matter how much better life would be if it were completely different.
Scorning those who are thrilled that they can get something by paying only $70 compared to $100 looks, walks, and quacks like classism.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'd like to echo Javert and Dagonee, and wonder how many people on Hatrack have actually experienced poverty?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: If you only have $70 to spend, it doesn't matter than paying almost 50% more will get you a better product.
Sure, paying $140 over a longer period costs more than paying $100 up front, but if you only have $70 at the time, that's the way to go. Paying for school out of pocket instead of taking out student loans would make more monetary sense in the long run, but if you don't have the cash to do it and taking out a loan is the only way to enter the door, it doesn't matter how much better life would be if it were completely different.
Scorning those who are thrilled that they can get something by paying only $70 compared to $100 looks, walks, and quacks like classism.
I don't think it's fair to start claiming classism when the people who made those statements were essentially just put in the position of defending their choices by someone who called them "Wal*mart bigots."
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I wonder how many people who regularly shop at Walmart have actually experienced poverty?
edit: For some people, yes, they don't have the money nor will they have the money (or more importantly the potential to get the money through responsible and restrained financial management) to buy the better quality item.
But I'd be really suprised if these people make up the bulk of regular Walmart customers.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
That depends on what you mean by poverty.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
How about "those unable to make ends meet if expenses increased by 50%."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
So...most of America, then.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How about "those unable to make ends meet if expenses increased by 50%."
Weren't we just talking about how the long terms expenses actually go down? How would that involve expenses increasing?
If you want to say they won't be able to make it in the short term, that's a different story.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That depends on what you mean by "make ends meet".
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I imagine that "expenses" means different things to different people. Clarification there is needed.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'd imagine that being able to pay for internet access and having a computer are generally going to disqualify people for "poverty" status for most definitions of the word I can think of.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wonder how many people who regularly shop at Walmart have actually experienced poverty?
According to some estimates, 40% of Americans experience poverty during at least one year in a given 10-year period.
I bet the percentage is higher for regular Wal-Mart shoppers.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: But the basic phenomenon is the same - the lack of financial resources causes people to spend more than needed to accomplish necessary tasks.
I've been told that a similar mechanic applies for those payday loan and cheque cashing places. They charge fees that would work out to obscene amounts over a year, but in the short term it relieves the upfront costs of maintaining a bank account. This is in Canada though and my knowledge is strictly theoretical so I do not mind being corrected. Any thoughts?
I also read in the other thread that someone cashed their pay cheque at a Publix(?) which from context I assumed was a supermarket of some sort, how does that work in the States (I have yet to see that kind of service here)?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'd imagine that being able to pay for internet access and having a computer are generally going to disqualify people for "poverty" status for most definitions of the word I can think of.
The most common definition of "poverty" I know if is "below the poverty line," which doesn't preempt having a computer or being able to pay for internet access.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I've been told that a similar mechanic applies for those payday loan and cheque cashing places.
Very much so.
My comment wasn't meant to speak directly to the Wal-Mart issue, but rather to expand on a significant structural issue regarding poverty highlighted by the general discussion. It's expensive to be poor, and this expense can keep people poor.
quote:I also read in the other thread that someone cashed their pay cheque at a Publix(?) which from context I assumed was a supermarket of some sort, how does that work in the States (I have yet to see that kind of service here)?
Many large grocery stores allow people to cash paychecks there, sometimes for a fee, but often not.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: But the basic phenomenon is the same - the lack of financial resources causes people to spend more than needed to accomplish necessary tasks.
I've been told that a similar mechanic applies for those payday loan and cheque cashing places. They charge fees that would work out to obscene amounts over a year, but in the short term it relieves the upfront costs of maintaining a bank account. This is in Canada though and my knowledge is strictly theoretical so I do not mind being corrected. Any thoughts?
I also read in the other thread that someone cashed their pay cheque at a Publix(?) which from context I assumed was a supermarket of some sort, how does that work in the States (I have yet to see that kind of service here)?
I'd say that the payday loan places are more about getting money now than they are substitutes for banks. The vast majority of people in the United States have some sort of access to a bank with free checking. And with online banks such as ING and free internet access at a library, you could probably argue that everyone who lives close to a library has access to a bank.
I have no idea what Publix is.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
For the first three years of my marriage, until my husband got his paying job at the fire department with good insurance, we lived under the poverty line. My oldest was born just after our first anniversary, so for the first two years of her life, we would have to do things like decide what we would sacrifice in order to buy diapers. Had my husband missed one paycheck we would have been unable to pay our monthly bills. Had I lost my job, which provided our health insurance, my child would have been uninsured. Of course, the majority of my check went to daycare, but even though we would have been financially better off if I quit and stayed home, I couldn't because I carried the insurance for the family.
We rented an 800 sq ft home in a low rent, high crime area of the city. We had three cars - all junkers, and counted ourselves lucky if my husband could keep two of the three running - he did all the maintenance and repair on them himself because we certainly couldn't afford to take them to a mechanic. The co-pays for Natalie's well-child visits to the doctor were enough to throw off our entire monthly budget and if she needed a prescription it meant we had to give up something - usually food for us in order to buy her medicine. (on the plus side, I was skinny!)
So yeah, I think I know a bit about poverty. Wal-Mart was the only place I could afford to buy diapers.
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
quote:The inability of many people to spend the extra money up front is a significant factor in many people's inability to lift themselves out of poverty.
This is a good point.
Offering a poor quality, cheaper alternative seems to perpetuate the cycle of poverty rather than helping people out of it. So, in selling someone a product for less money (hooray! I can afford it!) you're actually forcing them to buy that product *again* at a later date for even more out of pocket (damn thing broke! how am I going to afford a replacement?), ultimately worsening their condition rather than helping it.
A lot of this comes from WalMart's "Every Day" low prices. A Sears/Home Depot/Lowes/etc can often equal or better the WalMart price during a sale, and for a better quality product. It's the convenience of not having to wait for a sale that WalMart offers - at the cost of having to pay for that same product *again* sooner rather than later.
I understand that it's a "rock and a hard place" position for many people of doing without or buying crap. I get that.
The cycle of selling crap to those who can't afford better, then forcing them to come back and give you even more money to replace that crap at a later date, is exploitative and perpetuating a cycle of poverty, but I don't begrudge those below the poverty line that need to shop at WalMart to be sure there is food on the table.
But my beef is not with those below the poverty line. It's not even with those near the poverty line.
It's with those who have plenty of money, who don't have to feed the destructive force of WalMart, who do so anyway.
quote:Scorning those who are thrilled that they can get something by paying only $70 compared to $100 looks, walks, and quacks like classism.
Only if those "thrilled" are actually in a lower class than myself.
If someone in my same economic state, or in a better economic state, chooses to shop at WalMart with all the other alternatives at their disposal - then I can scorn them all I like, thankyouverymuch.
If you are not forced to shop at WalMart by economic forces, then I feel you shouldn't shop there. Period.
Such people are not in a situation where they *need* WalMart - they just get "wowed" by the low prices, and forget about everything else.
"You mean I can get christmas lights for $3 less? Sounds great!"
They don't think that there's a good chance they'll break before the season is out (and almost definitely by the following year) and need to be replaced, or that the company they're buying from may be put out of business because of WalMart undercutting them (see: Vlassic), or that another better quality company may be pushed to bankruptcy, or another distributer/retailer might be pushed to bankruptcy, or that money/jobs are being funnelled to China, etc, etc...
"Who cares about all that! It's 3 bucks! I could put that toward a latte at Starbucks!"
It's these people who are shortsighted, imo.
Personally, I don't need to shop at Walmart. So I don't. If you don't *have* to, I don't see any reason to.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The most common definition of "poverty" I know if is "below the poverty line," which doesn't preempt having a computer or being able to pay for internet access.
Sorry, yeah, I meant as it seemed to me it was being used in this thread. Many people contribute to their impoverished state by poor financial decisions and paying for luxuries (which internet access would be for most people). Obviously they'd still be in poverty, but would not be facing the situation where they'd be unable to get the capital to purchase higher quality goods in the amounts we are talking about.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
If you're going to say that shopping at Walmart is morally wrong, FlyingCow, you're going to have make some sort of argument about why it is so bad, either for yourself or because of negative moral externalities. So far I haven't seen an argument like that yet.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What about this?
quote:They don't think that there's a good chance they'll break before the season is out (and almost definitely by the following year) and need to be replaced, or that the company they're buying from may be put out of business because of WalMart undercutting them (see: Vlassic), or that another better quality company may be pushed to bankruptcy, or another distributer/retailer might be pushed to bankruptcy, or that money/jobs are being funnelled to China, etc, etc...
and, with some extention, this:
quote:The cycle of selling crap to those who can't afford better, then forcing them to come back and give you even more money to replace that crap at a later date, is exploitative and perpetuating a cycle of poverty, but I don't begrudge those below the poverty line that need to shop at WalMart to be sure there is food on the table.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: .. or that money/jobs are being funnelled to China, etc, etc. ... Personally, I don't need to shop at Walmart. So I don't. If you don't *have* to, I don't see any reason to.
May we humbly ask for your permission to shop at Walmart if we simply shop at a Price Club/Costco, Dollar Store, Walmart, Zellers, etc. if we find specific items that *are* cheaper at Walmart and *are* identical to ones sold elsewhere?
Alternatively, what if we actually like money/jobs being funnelled to China since they are improving the standard of living there? Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Y'know...I've never shopped at a Walmart. Not because I have any moral objection to them, but because there has NEVER been one located in my area (or, when in my area, located closer than Target/grocery store/Fred Meyer/whatever).
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
To be honest, Jhai, I have, many times in the past, made such arguments on this site. It's not a new topic.
I'm not even sure what I'm still doing spending time posting here. It started with a joke on the first page, lead to being called an "anti WalMart bigot", lead then to being called a "classist", and deteriorated from there.
I have affronted the religious order of WalMart customers - shame on me.
I'm backing out now, because I need to do some actual work here at work, and by the time I get back to hatrack this will likely have ballooned three more pages.
There are plenty of sources on the web, though, should you care to check it out. Here is a good place to start. You can also check out: walmartmovie.com, walmartwatch.com, and hel-mart.com, just to name a few from a quick google search.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
On this issue of things breaking: Buying something that will likely break in the future might shortsighted, but it's not clear to me that it's a morally wrong action. Also, it's not clear that it's always in the best interests of the person to buy the best quality product - that is, it may not be shortsighted to purchase cheap crap. Finally, not everything Walmart touches explodes into a fiery ball 11.3 months later - I have some things from Walmart, like an iron, a crockpot, gloves, etc that are still going strong.
On the issue of putting other people out of business: I don't think it's morally wrong to put people out of business because you offer a better product or a cheap price than they do. If mom & pop stores try to compete on price w/ Walmart, they're going to lose. But they can certainly compete on other fronts, such as customer service. No company has an innate right to exist.
On the issue of China: I'm glad that the Chinese people are no longer as impoverished as they were. I don't see why I should prefer an American person's *blank* (livelihood, income, etc) over a Chinese person's *blank*.
On the issue of selling crap to poor people: I don't think it's morally wrong to offer people choices in what they buy. I don't think Walmart should be faulted for an adult's poor decision.
Edit: That's cool, FlyingCow. I think we've butted heads on this issue before anyways.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Fine, but you said you hadn't seen an argument. There's a difference between you not agreeing with what was put forth and no argument being put forth.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
So yeah, I think I know a bit about poverty. Wal-Mart was the only place I could afford to buy diapers.
Not trying to one up you, Belle, but just to show that everything's relative, I thought people who could buy disposable diapers were fabulously wealthy. I used baby shower money to buy cloth diapers and washed them at the laundromat for my first two children.
I I knew I didn't have much, but I truly did not consider myself "poor". Looking back, I can't believe how little money we lived on back then.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Okay - there was no argument put forth that didn't rest on a lot of unsaid and questionable claims.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I also have many things purchased from WalMart that I've had for years and never experienced any problems with them.
I do not buy clothing there, because the clothing does tend to wear out quickly. But things like light bulbs, trash bags, paper goods - those I get at WalMart and am fine with doing so. It also helps that WalMart is the only store in my town, essentially, and the closest true grocery store is over 15 miles away.
I don't recommend buying meat from WalMart if you have one nearby that is a super WalMart with the grocery store. They don't employ meat cutters, so they buy all their beef pre-packaged which means it's not as fresh as it would be in a grocery store. But, since I buy all my beef directly from a local rancher, that's not an issue for me. Poultry and produce I get from a grocery store, usually when I'm taking the kids to gymnastics or cheerleading practice in that town anyway.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Maui babe, were you living in Hawaii at the time? I just ask because the relative cost of disposable diapers to cloth diapers may have been quite different for you & Belle, given how exorbitantly priced some things are in Hawaii. Might be that you both went with the cheapest item, given opportunity cost and all that jazz.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I have affronted the religious order of WalMart customers - shame on me.
Come on. You don't have to feel religious fervor or even like Walmart (I certainly don't the first, and I'm pretty neutral on the second) to take issue with you telling me I should shop there (which I do).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Jhai, from things maui babe has said in the past, I can tell you that she was living in the lower 48.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
Yes, my former husband was in the military and we lived in several mainland states in those days.
And my 'early baby' days were probably 10-15 years before Belle's.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I avoid WalMart as much as possible, but mostly because it's crowded and my feet get tired walking down the enormously long aisles. But I appreciate having it fairly near our home because sometimes there are those 3 am runs for children's ibuprofen or whipped cream or whatever, and I know I can just go over to WalMart and get those. We have a 24-hour Walgreen's about a block away that is also handy like that.
I do like to shop the Mom & Pop stores when I can, but I'm always too late to get to them before they close. Being at work from 8 to 5 cuts off my access to lots of places that aren't open much past 6. Seriously, on the rare non-holiday weekday that I don't go to work and am out and about, it's a different world. Stores are open that I've never seen open. Services are available that are never available by the time I get home from work. In a small town we lived in about a year ago, I tried stopping at a small hardware store once on my way home from work. They were closing the doors and turning off the lights at 5:30. Crap. I would have been a regular customer there if I could have been.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I don't shop at Wal-Mart. I don't have money to buy my kids all new clothes. My kids wear hand-me-downs, thrift store clothes, and clothes bought on clearance sales at deep, deep discount. Bonus: I end up with better-quality clothes. There are other options for decent, cheap clothes than Wal-Mart.
I participate in a bargain shopping forum where we compare prices and deals. People who do check Wal-Mart's prices regularly find that they save more money on food and hygeine items doubling coupons at the grocery store and matching coupons with sales and stacking Target coupons with manufacturer's coupons and using drugstore money-back reward deals in tandem with coupons than they ever could with just coupons and Wal-Mart.
So I think it is entirely possible to live on a very, very tight budget and not shop at Wal-Mart.
Posted by Lostincyberspace (Member # 11228) on :
wal-mart only has a few good deals at a time the rest are generally more expensive, it is in a documentary on wal-mart in an interview with the ceo or some thing.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I don't wear used clothing. Personal preference, but completely worth it to me. I get electronics, bikes, furniture, computers, everything else used, but not my clothes. I sweat in my clothes. I'm assuming every else does as well.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Okay. That's fine. We don't mind because we wash our clothes. With soap. And bleach. We figure that probably takes out anything you can't see; we don't buy stained clothes to begin with.
I can understand the squick factor, I just don't personally have it. I mean, my kids eat each others' FOOD, despite all attempts to make them stop. So wearing other peoples' clothes, not a big deal to me.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Aw KQ, you know I wash my clothes as well.
I still don't want to wear something else's old clothing.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(If I really wanted to I could probably get all-new clearance clothes all the time. But it would be a lot more work.
For instance, Wal-Mart's website advertises a two-pack of toddler sleepers for $9.77. I generally pay no more than $6.88 on clearance for a two pack of blanket sleepers. Usually less.
A wearable blanket and cap set is $19.98, and is by Kiddopotamus, whose clothing quality I have been previously unimpressed with. I bought a Halo SleepSack set for $11.47 on clearance, and a Carter's sleeper with cap for $9.97 on clearance.
I'm choosing things I've shopped for recently so I'll have recent comparisons to give, but I bet I could do the same with most clothing I buy.)
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Right. All those bargains take a lot of work (my time) to get, and that means they are much more expensive than is reflected in the price tag.
That's why I LOVE the huge supermarts with groceries attached (although there aren't any nearby and that makes me sad). I go shopping about once every three weeks and I only have time on a Saturday, which is also the day for everything else in my life that isn't work or school or church. I love it that I don't have to spend an entire day wandering around picking up one item at a time after exhaustive research.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have no problems wearing used (used, not "old") clothes, but it takes so long to find something that fits me and is in decent shape that I usually give up.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Aw KQ, you know I wash my clothes as well.
I still don't want to wear something else's old clothing.
No, I understand that. I was just trying to explain why it doesn't bother us, personally, but that I can understand some people don't like it.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I try not to shop at Wal*Mart for many reasons, most already covered. But living in a remote area like I do, I don't have a lot of other options.
For example, a couple of years ago, my daughter burned herself pretty badly and her physician recommended that we keep it covered with gauze. She gave us a small supply of large gauze pads, but I needed to buy more. I was in one of my "anywhere but Walmart" phases, so I spent the better part of a Saturday driving all over the island trying to find large gauze pads. I went to every drug store, grocery store and variety store I could think of. I even went to a medical supply store. No one had any 4x4 gauze pads. I finally gave up and went to Walmart, and bought several boxes for about $2 each.
Of course, the Walmart here on Maui (and the several on Oahu) are not great about restocking sometimes. I've taken pictures with my cell phone to show my family on the mainland the rows and rows of empty shelves. I've been trying to find men's cotton athletic shorts in 36 inch waist for months, and can't find them anywhere in the state.
So I shop Walmart, only because there really isn't any other option here. I don't buy clothing there... I find I can get as good or better prices on clearance at Macys or Sears or at Ross, and far better quality. I don't buy small appliances or home decor items there. But for laundry soap, toilet paper, school supplies and the like, I shop at Walmart.
Also, my cats throughout the years have LOVED LOVED LOVED Special Kitty dry cat food (Walmart brand)... I've had them turn up their nose at the more expensive brands. They get so excited when I buy SK from Walmart. I'm not sure what it is about it. For about 3 years we lived in a town with no Walmart nearby, and my cat ate other brands, but never got excited. Then a Walmart opened up and I bought a bag of SK and he ripped the bag open with his teeth and ate until he was sick (literally). That was 4 cats ago, and they all do the same thing. If I buy any other brand, they'll eat it eventually, but let me know they don't approve. But Special Kitty makes them very happy. Maybe it has cat crack cocaine in it or something. But I see no reason to pay a lot more for something that they'll refuse to eat, so I keep buying the cheap stuff.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Man, maui babe, now I want to go try that Special Kitty food.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Is it healthy, though? I mean, when I was a kid, I would've lived on fast food & microwavable Kid Cuisine if I had the choice.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
maui babe, that's how my cats are about the Target brand food. We get them the "good stuff" occasionally and they just don't like it as much!
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
As far as time, stopping at Carter's and looking through the 70% and higher racks takes me no more time then going to Walmart and looking through their clothing section. I buy a few sizes ahead and get very upset when I discover that I need clothes that are my child's actual size. But my Carter's usually has a pretty good selection in their heavily discounted section.
kq- my baby likes dog food a lot, so even if yours eat each other's food, atleast they are limiting their diet to people food (we do not encourage or allow the baby to eat dog food, but sometimes she is smarter and faster then us).
Belle- if you were below the poverty line, why weren't you on Medicaid and WIC and stuff? Your paying into those programs whether you want to or not, so it isn't really a handout. edit to add- no meant to be accusatory, I know several people who don't use those services and was just curious.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Belle- if you were below the poverty line, why weren't you on Medicaid and WIC and stuff? Your paying into those programs whether you want to or not, so it isn't really a handout.
Back when we were poor enough to be on those programs, we consistently ended up paying essentially zero income tax. We were not paying into them.
Of course, we've more than made up for that since then.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
mph- based on people I know, most people are on theses program for a few years and then start making tons of money, so are now paying in a large amount- more then enough to make up for whatever they took out- I din't phrase that well though and probably am still not.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
I don't do Wal-Mart here in NV because it is 75 miles away. And, when I am in UT, I won't go because the one in Ogden is on Riverdale Road and I refuse to drive on that poster poser for poor urban planning. But, before you pay too much attention to the above provided web-sites, you need to remember that there is an ongoing labor dispute with WM and a consortium of labor unions. Most of these sites are used, if not sponsored by the Unions. Statements concerning Wal-Mart need to be given the same consideration you give statements about the National Republican Party, posted on National Democratic Party sites. They may well be true. But, you better check closely. (Unless you are a true believer, and chose to believe them.) However, anything you might have heard or read about the abismal design of Riverdale Road can be believed without having to actually drive on it.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:kq- my baby likes dog food a lot, so even if yours eat each other's food, atleast they are limiting their diet to people food (we do not encourage or allow the baby to eat dog food, but sometimes she is smarter and faster then us).
Nope, the 1.5 year old eats the cats' food (and tries to drink their water, too...)
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:kq- my baby likes dog food a lot, so even if yours eat each other's food, atleast they are limiting their diet to people food (we do not encourage or allow the baby to eat dog food, but sometimes she is smarter and faster then us).
Nope, the 1.5 year old eats the cats' food (and tries to drink their water, too...)
Well, that makes me feel better. When my sister in law heard that my baby eats dogfood, she became convinced that I am the worst mother in the world. I am just waiting for hers to start walking- they have 2 cats and a dog. Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Oh, it started well before walking! And this is WITH the cat stuff behind the baby gate in the kitchen she's forbidden to enter!
Emma did it for a while too. She outgrew it. I hear my oldest sister did it too.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
A couple, visiting our home once, didn't watch the 2 year old closely. She finshed off the catfood in the other room, then she started to eat the cat. Poor Poncho, to his credit, just yowled, instead of biting. We were able to rescue him, all limbs intact and only very little actual blood shed. In time, she did grow up to be a lovely young lady, with few descernable quirks.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
We definitely would have qualified for WIC, my doctor urged us to take advantage of it but we were young, and insistent on caring for our child ourselves. We also both believed that taking government aid when we COULD make it on our own was morally wrong.
Those programs are there for the people who really need them, and the fact that we survived and later thrived (given that we are, in fact, quite well above the poverty line now) was evidence that we didn't truly need it.
I don't begrudge people who do need it from taking advantage of it, dont' get me wrong. I just think that they need to be last resorts. Had it been a choice between taking government assistance and our child going hungry, I definitely would have. As it was, she never went hungry and we made it through, though by the skin of our teeth.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
While I also chose not to take advantage of public assistance at the point that I qualified for it, I disagree with this statement:
quote:the fact that we survived and later thrived (given that we are, in fact, quite well above the poverty line now) was evidence that we didn't truly need it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
We signed up for WIC checks for a time after our first son was born. We lived with her mom for six months before marrying and getting an apartment, and needed the extra help.
However, since we were unmarried Teres filled out the form and when it asked how much the father was paying for support she put $50/wk. I was actually giving her my paycheck and she was handling the bills, she just put down how much we were spending on our son. We got through it, got married, and moved on.
Except I started getting bills from the government, wanting me to pay back the amount of the WIC checks. They deducted the amount I "provided" to Teres, but I had to pay back the rest. We showed the rep our income and our bills and said she could have whatever she could find. After running the numbers and finding that we were, at the time, losing $100/mo (assuming we paid everything on time), she settled for a payroll deduction of $10 a week for several years until it was paid off.
So yes, we accepted help from the government. And then we paid it all back. Reluctantly, but we did Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Those programs are there for the people who really need them
I might feel like that if WIC were funded by voluntary contributions.
But since I'm not given a choice as to whether or not to contribute to WIC, I'm not going to feel bad for not being discriminating as to whether or not I accept government assistance when I qualify.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
WIC's literature makes me roll my eyes sometimes.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
I probably could have qualified for some forms of government assistance a few years ago, or at least unemployment. I never tried. I guess it would not really have been stealing (by my moral code) to take it as I had paid in before losing my job, but I was younger and had much firmer convictions about any sort of government assistance than I do now. Besides, I would have just spent the money I received (or saved) on cocaine anyway. I still think welfare is morally wrong, and theft, but oh well. My tax dollars are spent on much worse things than helping people who need it, or even those who don't need it. I just blew the last few thousand in my savings account on drugs, got my calories from cheap beer, enjoyed having no responsibilities whatsoever for a couple months, and had a job within a few days of making a serious effort to look for one.
I'm still proud that I never went on welfare, but if I had to do it over again I would probably have taken unemployment as I had paid into it with my own money for two years before that.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:and had a job within a few days of making a serious effort to look for one.
Well, you're very lucky. We've had periods when my husband was out of work up to 5 or 6 months at a time, despite looking diligently (like, looking for work became his full-time job.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danzig: I'm still proud that I never went on welfare
I'm not. I'm glad it never got bad enough that I didn't have a choice, and very grateful that I had other resources to fall back on. But that was good fortune, not something I have anything to be proud of.
OTOH, I am proud to say I have never used illegal drugs, nor overdone alcohol. That is something that I did make the right choices about, so I do have something to be proud of.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Well, I didn't exactly get the same type of job had had or wanted. My old job had been at a call center making $20/hour, my new job was cooking for $7/hour (at first). Now I was a single (very young) adult with no dependents, so I do realize I could afford to take a lower-paying job than someone with a spouse and/or children. But I think far too many people refuse to go work at McDonald's or Pizza Hut or wherever and then look for another, better job. Personally I would prefer to cook in sit-down, local restaurants because the conditions and pay are usually better, but you can bet if I had to I would be asking, "Do you want fries with that?" Maybe a restaurant job doesn't pay enough to support a family, but any income is better than no income. And I have met people who were raising children on a cook's pay. I just discovered I liked the freedom of the industry, and have spent the last 2.5 years working in kitchens.
I feel I have a reason to be proud for not going on welfare. I know more than one person who, after getting fired for whatever valid reason, decided to try to get unemployment or disability rather than look for another job, at least until it ran out. I wasn't fired from the call center; I was laid off when they realized they could pay Indians a fifth of what they paid me. I could have gotten unemployment, probably quite a bit of it. But I did not. Sure, I screwed around for a little while, but not on anyone else's (or even my own since I did pay in) dime. I did have to go without for a while- once my savings got really low it was a choice between food or drugs, and I made a conscious decision to compromise with beer, even though I think I would have been eligible for food stamps.
I dunno, I was just raised to believe that you should always pay your own way. If I had had kids I would have done things a little differently, yes. Certainly I would have gotten food stamps if I had to, but then I would also have started looking for a job immediately instead of taking a two month vacation, and obviously spent what money I did have on food and not beer.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danzig: Now I was a single (very young) adult with no dependents, so I do realize I could afford to take a lower-paying job than someone with a spouse and/or children.
Yup. If the pay isn't enough to cover the cost of childcare, it's worse than no job. And if it's minimum wage but interferes with doing what is necessary to get that better job, still not much gain -- if any.
quote:Originally posted by Danzig: I feel I have a reason to be proud for not going on welfare. I know more than one person who, after getting fired for whatever valid reason, decided to try to get unemployment or disability rather than look for another job, at least until it ran out.
Yeah, so do I. So? If it meant you were actually eating food, that sounds like it would have been a better option.
quote:Originally posted by Danzig: I did have to go without for a while- once my savings got really low it was a choice between food or drugs, and I made a conscious decision to compromise with beer, even though I think I would have been eligible for food stamps.
Beer was a compromise? >_<
quote:Originally posted by Danzig: If I had had kids I would have done things a little differently, yes. Certainly I would have gotten food stamps if I had to, but then I would also have started looking for a job immediately instead of taking a two month vacation, and obviously spent what money I did have on food and not beer.
Sadly, it's not obvious to everyone. And to be brutally honest, I have my doubts about you. If you can't take good care of yourself, why are you so sure you'd take good care of kids?
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Yes, it was a compromise. It has a decent amount of calories, so I wouldn't starve, and it has alcohol, so I would stay sane. As far as I'm concerned, while my heavy use at that period of my life may have been bad for my physical health it was good for my mental health. I gained a lot of new perspective, and I'm honestly quite a bit happier (and have been so for the last two years) since that period than before. I should add that while I still use intoxicants, the amount is significantly less than that summer and keeps going down... not because I am trying to quit, or even want to quit anything but cigarettes, but because I just don't want to use as much. Priorities change, but at the time that was one.
And I don't think I would be a good father at all, for many reasons, but I would damn well try to be if the situation arose. That two month period was the longest in my life I have been without a job since I started working at 18 and a half. I have a lot of growing up to do, but I have always worked, usually worked hard, and I would absolutely be able to provide for the basic needs of any children I had. I am not saying I would be a good parent, I am saying I would at the very least meet the bare minimum moral standards required of parents. Even if it meant swallowing my pride, breaking other moral standards, and accepting welfare to feed my children... but I would rather, if remotely possible, work to provide for them and if I was lucky possibly impart some sense of work ethic to them. (Not saying that people who depend on welfare to feed their children have no work ethic, just that I would want to set as good an example as was possible, and working is part of that.)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)