quote:Yes, 13% return. Do you know a lot about the stock market? A negative return as a whole =/= everyone lost money. There are people that made millions in profits in 2008. Over 50% of my 401(k) contributions are invested in foreign stocks, which helped my return rate.
I do know a lot about the stock market and I was wondering how you pulled this off. The entire world and every foreign index that I'm aware of had a major drop in 2008, so I'm not sure how investing in foreign stocks would help.
But, an investment strategy that is consistently returning 13+% a year across the very different environments of the past 4 years is something I'd like to know more about, preferably in detail. Could you explain more about this?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'd be interested as well.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Give me a little bit to put something together for you. I need to grab my current 401(k) allocation off of fidelity.
I'll list my allocation and the names of the mutual funds that I'm currently investing in.
Hope this helps, I'll look up my own allocations when I get home. Most of my funds I am currently invested in show up on that top 70 list though.
Keep in mind that 13% I quoted is average return. I didn't hit 13% in 2008, I think my return was something like 8 or 9%. I'll see if I can get some history for you. If I made it seem like I got a hard 13% return in 2008 I apologize.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm still puzzled about the 13% average return figure, especially if you've invested mainly in the funds on that list. Only four of them have had a 5-year return higher than 9%, and none are higher than about 11%.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
/shrug I don't know what to tell you Destineer. Only that when I go onto Fidelity's website and it shows my average rate of return over the time I have invested as 13%.
I don't know how they figure that number, I may be able to find out when I check it out later tonight. I'll let you know.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I have Fidelity too. I'm pretty sure that they calculate money contributed in the period into that rate of return calculation.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
So basically, that whole argument that your making Geraine- you don't even understand your investments well enough to know if it's based on fact or not.
Ok. Good to know about you in future.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
This is pretty silly.
Considering the only reason he brought it up was to illustrate that he would rather handle his own retirement preparations rather than have the government take a not-insignificant chunk of every check and do it for him. The exact percentage he mentioned is irrelevant. The point isn't even whether or not he will make good investment decisions, the point is he believes he ought to have the freedom to make those decisions for himself
It may not be the goal of everyone posting in this thread, but I'm going to be honest. This looks very accusatory. It doesn't look like honest curiosity, it looks like (all of? most of? some of?) you guys are trying to "catch" him, to "prove" that he's lying and discredit him.
I don't get it. Why? Who cares? Say he's lying—or was mistakenly exaggerating, which seems more likely, and impossible to prove one from the other—so what? Does it impact what he said?
This feels like a creepy sort of witch hunt, and I'm really baffled as to the purpose.
If this is all in my head and I'm misreading you all, then I apologize.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Geraine: what's the length of time you have invested, and have you been continuing to make contributions during that time?
If most of the time is either during or shortly before the start of the recession, and you've been putting money in regularly since then, of course you have 13% return (with a moderately aggressive strategy). Most of your capital would have been invested near the bottom of the market. It isn't all that hard to get a 13% return under those conditions; I've been getting around that in the period I indicated. The thing is, that'd be almost purely an artifact of when you entered the market (combined with some reasonable choices), not anything that will make it possible to see such return on investments in the long term.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Obviously you're right that this has no bearing on the topic of the other thread. I bet that's why Squick started a separate thread.
To answer your question on my own behalf, I was put off by what I perceived as boasting. Since Geraine's figure stretched credulity pretty severely, I sought to take the piss out of him. Not my finest moment, I admit.
I for one lost a lot of money in 2008.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Okay. I can see that motivation. As you said, it's not exactly noble, but it's much less nefarious than the motivation I think I was ascribing to you in my head. So, I'm glad you clarified. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Well, me too in that case!
quote:If most of the time is either during or shortly before the start of the recession, and you've been putting money in regularly since then, of course you have 13% return (with a moderately aggressive strategy). Most of your capital would have been invested near the bottom of the market. It isn't all that hard to get a 13% return under those conditions; I've been getting around that in the period I indicated. The thing is, that'd be almost purely an artifact of when you entered the market (combined with some reasonable choices), not anything that will make it possible to see such return on investments in the long term.
Interesting. So they calculate average returns by figuring out how much was made on each dollar from the time it was invested until the present, and averaging that (rather than averaging the percent return in each individual year).
It makes perfect sense that they'd do it that way, and yet it would never have occurred to me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I have Fidelity too. I'm pretty sure that they calculate money contributed in the period into that rate of return calculation.
Correct.
I use Fidelity as well, and looking at a quarter when I was still making contributions to my 401K, it is absolutely clear that my "Personal Rate of Return" was change in account divided by beginning balance.
This is Fidelity's blurb:
quote:Your Personal Rate of Return is calculated with a time-weighted formula, widely used by financial analysts to calculate investment earnings. It reflects the results of your investment selections as well as any activity in the plan account(s) shown. There are other Personal Rate of Return formulas used that may yield different results. Remember that past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
rivka: Fidelity doesn't calculate it that way, and their blurb doesn't say they calculate it that way. You can find a good description of how they calculate it here:
Money contributed is absolutely not included as returns.
However, contributing money near the bottom of the market will tend to make returns look much better, because the money contributed then has much higher returns.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, Fidelity even has a page that makes it clear they use the method described on the previous page I linked:
Fugu13: Rivka's quote is the same one I see on my "Year to Date Change", but I think you're right. I tried running the math, and it looks like the contributions AREN'T included.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Funny. When I do the math it sure looks like they are. (I did the math for more than one quarter, just to check.)
And the Fidelity page fugu linked to says
quote:This calculation is based on a number of factors, including . . . the size and timing of your additions and/or withdrawals.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In any case, I just had Fidelity calculate my rate of return for the past 24 months (the longest time period it allows). And it was MUCH higher than 13%. And I invest very conservatively.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:In any case, I just had Fidelity calculate my rate of return for the past 24 months (the longest time period it allows). And it was MUCH higher than 13%. And I invest very conservatively.
Over the past 24 months, that sounds very believable. In December of 2008, the S&P 500 was in the 880s, today it's at 1,242.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Yeah, I can't make it give me more than the last month of 2008.
(But by MUCH, I mean in excess of a factor of 3.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:This calculation is based on a number of factors, including . . . the size and timing of your additions and/or withdrawals.
Yes. As it is in the calculation I linked, yet the calculation does not work in the way you indicated.
If you want to find out for sure, just call Fidelity and ask them if you had an account with $10k, and put in $20k, and there was basically no change in the stocks the money was invested in, if it would show up as a 200% personal rate of return for that period. I can assure you that they will tell you no.
And I'm not surprised the two year rate of return is much higher. Using an S&P 500 index as an example, your initial balance at the start of that period could have a rate of return of around 50% (depending on exactly which day it starts from). Money invested after then would actually reduce your rate of return below that, since it would be invested at a slightly higher price and gain a bit less to today. A tiny bit before or six or so months after two years and the results would be drastically different, but two years ago was very close to the bottom of the market. So your results are completely consistent with the description of the calculation that I've linked.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, the reason I said you needed an aggressive portfolio to reach 13% was if we were including a period with the stock market drop. The S&P 500 hasn't recovered nearly as nicely as some international/emerging markets funds have, so a maximally conservative investment strategy for someone who hasn't yet reached the point where they should be shifting from stocks to bonds won't have done nearly as well.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: This is pretty silly.
Considering the only reason he brought it up was to illustrate that he would rather handle his own retirement preparations rather than have the government take a not-insignificant chunk of every check and do it for him. The exact percentage he mentioned is irrelevant. The point isn't even whether or not he will make good investment decisions, the point is he believes he ought to have the freedom to make those decisions for himself
It may not be the goal of everyone posting in this thread, but I'm going to be honest. This looks very accusatory. It doesn't look like honest curiosity, it looks like (all of? most of? some of?) you guys are trying to "catch" him, to "prove" that he's lying and discredit him.
I don't get it. Why? Who cares? Say he's lyingor was mistakenly exaggerating, which seems more likely, and impossible to prove one from the otherso what? Does it impact what he said?
This feels like a creepy sort of witch hunt, and I'm really baffled as to the purpose.
If this is all in my head and I'm misreading you all, then I apologize.
To be clear as to my intention: Geraine and a few others here consistently and perpetually show a disinterest in or misunderstanding of the economic issues at play regarding specifically social medicine and wellfare. You, for instance, harp on the right of an individual to control his own investments. However, you do not actually engage with the central argument in favor of social security, which is not control of the structure of investments being vested in the state, which is only a feature of the system, not an aim, nor one believed to be more potentially profitable than private investment. Rather, the central argument is that the indroduction of choice and risk in a social welfare system destabilizes that system, defeating its purpose. Again, that purpose is not government control, but rather the stability of retired households, and ultimately the stability of the state and economy itself.
So when geraine produces anecdotal evidence in favor of his argument, even as he totally ignores the central features of social security, adding to that equation the fact that he is not even being completely forthecoming or truthful in his relating of the facts impeaches his character, and his motivations for arguing his case.
But thats minor. The real issue at hand is that the conservative movement in America *doesn´t understand* or acknowledge the aims of ss, and socialized medicine, and that is disruptive to the population as a whole´s ability to assess it and make decisions in their own interest.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm confused. Initially, you said that your 401k gained over 13% a year every year for the past four years. This turned out not to be accurate.
Are you saying now that it has gained an average of 13% a year over the past four years or that it's up over 13% total over the past four years?
edit: Also, a return of 8-9% in 2008 is still a phenomenal achievement. Could you explain how you accomplished that?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
You know, at first I saw this thread and thought that you actually had an interest, but as the thread has progressed and from looking at your following posts, I see that wasn't the case.
I'm going to go ahead and choose to remove myself from the conversation completely. I'm not going to discuss anything with those whose only interest is to demean and bring down others.
I really thought that you were better than that. I expected something like that from a couple others on this board, but not you.
Shame on me for not realizing it sooner.
I expect that there will be posts that now I am just avoiding the discussion on purpose and that I was lying the whole time. I guess that is their right. I won't be visiting this thread anymore so go crazy.
Dan, thank you for what you said. The whole crux of the discussion was regarding personal freedom, and it turned into something else.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yep. That's my *only* interest. That's it. Right there. Not the other stuff I talked about. Not that stuff. Nope!
ETA: No, the crux of the argument was not personal freedom. That's a conservative canard. It's an argument against which there is no argument, because it doesn't actually mean anything. You just define "personal freedom" as "what I want to do, and be able to do," and you're off and running. So the content of your "argument" is always just going to be defining whatever it is you want to do. That's not an argument. That's a statement. An argument might involve: "here is what I think will work better than what you think will work." Your "argument" if it ever skirts such territory, involves stating, restating, and recapitulating the same several talking points about the free market- most of which are wrong, misapplied, or incompletely thought out. When someone argues against those points as being actually valid, you return to your previous "argument," about what you want to do, and what you want to be able to do. Because nobody can argue against that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Geraine, My apologies that you are being attacked in this thread. I for one was generally interested in the investment question and was not trying to "get you". I'm a bit disappointed that you were simply referring to funds that I already know about and invest in and that your large returns seem to be to some extent an artifact of accounting and the particular period in question but I have not been trying to paint you out as a liar. I am genuinely sorry about it.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: You know, at first I saw this thread and thought that you actually had an interest, but as the thread has progressed and from looking at your following posts, I see that wasn't the case.
I'm going to go ahead and choose to remove myself from the conversation completely. I'm not going to discuss anything with those whose only interest is to demean and bring down others.
I really thought that you were better than that. I expected something like that from a couple others on this board, but not you.
Shame on me for not realizing it sooner.
I expect that there will be posts that now I am just avoiding the discussion on purpose and that I was lying the whole time. I guess that is their right. I won't be visiting this thread anymore so go crazy.
Dan, thank you for what you said. The whole crux of the discussion was regarding personal freedom, and it turned into something else.
i admire you for leaving the 'conversation' with your character still intact and for your attempt at engaging these people in a reasonable manner. i dont think you were trying to deceive or mislead anyone nor do i think it was mrsquickys intention for the thread to unfold as it did but sadly some people took it upon themselves to 'educate' you regarding what, at its worst, was maybe some ignorance regarding your personal investments.
something that could have been positive and beneficial for everyone ended up as this, a negative outcome, which, as ive learned these last few months, happens quite often on hatrack and is the result, usually, of just a handful of regular posters.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Geraine, My apologies that you are being attacked in this thread. I for one was generally interested in the investment question and was not trying to "get you". I'm a bit disappointed that you were simply referring to funds that I already know about and invest in and that your large returns seem to be to some extent an artifact of accounting and the particular period in question but I have not been trying to paint you out as a liar. I am genuinely sorry about it.
Why? You think people being that loose with the facts in order to prove fallacious points ought to be ok?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Why? You think people being that loose with the facts in order to prove fallacious points ought to be ok?
I don't think that's what happened. I don't think Geraine was deliberately misleading people, I think it was a honest miscommunication.
I prefer to never attribute to malevolence anything that can easily be explained by incompetence. (This is not to say I think Geraine is incompetent, only that in this case the facts were not originally communicated competently).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't want to attribute malevolence. Incompetence, yes. And yet incompetence undertaken to benefit a point he was trying to make. It makes me wonder how many other things he gets wrong in order to believe what he does. People can convince themselves of all kinds of things.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Orincoro, Call it what you like, you are still assuming a degree of intentionality that I believe is unjustified. That kind of cynicism about peoples intentions and motivations makes communication more difficult and persuasion impossible.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
The website said he made 13% on his investment. I think it makes perfect sense for him to assume that meant what he said it did. It would be nice if there wasn't that confusion when dealing with finances but that is a different issue. But I don't think Geraine is alone in the way he interpreted his website.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Personally, I think the incompetance on display here does help to illustrate why the government has to operate some form of forced savings. Malevolence would seem to actually dilute the point. Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Why? You think people being that loose with the facts in order to prove fallacious points ought to be ok?
I don't think that's what happened. I don't think Geraine was deliberately misleading people, I think it was a honest miscommunication.
I prefer to never attribute to malevolence anything that can easily be explained by incompetence. (This is not to say I think Geraine is incompetent, only that in this case the facts were not originally communicated competently).
I swore I wouldn't open the thread but sadly curiosity is stronger than my will to stay away.
Thank you Rabbit. I will readily admit that at times I have a very hard time getting my point across. I get very easily worked up, and in a frenzy I sometimes type things that I don't neccessarily think out. I've used the edit button liberally in the past. I don't know why that is. At times when I am on the phone I will explain something to client and they become confused. In my mind what I said made perfect sense, to them I just said a bunch of jibberish.
To Orincoro, I appreciate your opinion, but I do feel that I am not guilty of those things are accusing me of. At least to that extent. I think part of your complaints against me is that we simply have two different political belief systems. Even if I agreed with you on something I feel like you would still berate me for it. I don't know how much of your disagreement at times is honest and how much of it is simply because you disagree with the my belief system. I know that I sometimes read what some people post and wonder how it is even possible someone could believe what they do. I respect their views, and I think I've been pretty respectful when posting replies. I'm sure there have been times where I have not been as respectful as I could have or should have, and for that I apologize.
I can sum up my polical outlook like this: I believe in self reliance. I believe that everyone has the power to accomplish whatever they want to as long as they are free to do so. I believe that everyone is responsible for their own well being, their own life, and their own accomplishments. I know people fall on hard times and that at times they need help. I believe when someone makes a decision for you, defines what you can and can't do, say, listen to, eat, or read, you lose an opportunity to learn. I believe the less other people make decisions for you, the better your life will be. The more decisions others make for you, the more reliant you become on them, which takes away from you opportunity, identity, and knowledge.
To me, when the government makes a choice for me, they are robbing me of an opportunity to grow.
I understand people feel differently, and I respect that. When you read my posts, especially on those topics such as government entitlement programs, please keep in mind that I look at it in a different way than you. You may think it is idiotic and stupid, but just remember that there are probably those that think the same thing about your views, no matter how right you know you are. I think the board could benefit as a whole if everyone focused on helping people understand different views instead of just putting down the person down for the view they already have.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Because this thread is no longer about good investments, I'm going to use it to make some points about Social Security.
I think a lot of people are unhappy about the Social Security system because they see it simply as a government mandated pension plan. Social security really can't compete with a good pension plan so its natural that people would be dissatisfied with it.
But Social Security isn't a just a pension plan. As it's name implies, its a safety net. The goal of social security is to insure that everyone who works will have at least something to live on when they can no longer work do to age or disability. A central goal of social security has been to eliminate severe poverty among the elderly and disabled.
A lot of working people are barely making ends meet. They don't have jobs that offer a pension, or change jobs too frequently to become vested. Even someone who has been prudently saving for retirement can get caught with a string of bad luck. Private pensions go bust all the time. Stock portfolios can drop to nothing overnight. Severe illness and disability can force people to stop working long before they'd planned. A car accident can leave your spouse and children without you and your income.
For the past 75 years, social security has been there in those worst case scenarios and its been spectacularly successful in eliminating poverty among the elderly. So much so that few people even remember a time when we had poor houses filled with old people. Retirement is now looked forward to as a time to pursue travels and hobbies rather than a time when you become dependent on the charity of your children and others. I think of that as a public good that benefits all of society.
I am happy to pay social security solely because it helps support older and disabled people who worked hard all their lives. I see that as a moral obligation. There may be other and even better ways to fill that moral obligation, but privatizing social security would not fill that obligation. My private savings and pension plan are intended to make sure I am cared for when I am no longer able to work. Social security makes sure others are also taken care of.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"I think part of your complaints against me is that we simply have two different political belief systems."
No, my complaint is that your ideas are wrong, and your system is flawed, and you are not able to articulate, nor do you seem to understand, the opposition. More careful people who are also conservative present mostly valid arguments in favor of their ideas, and acknowledge the relevance of other good ideas and arguments. You are not often capable of that, or you do not display that capability often.
"Even if I agreed with you on something I feel like you would still berate me for it."
I often have strong words for people who agree with me politically. If they aren't thinking, and if they aren't thinking well, I am interested in making them aware of the fact. I appreciate when that is done for me.
" I respect their views, and I think I've been pretty respectful when posting replies. I'm sure there have been times where I have not been as respectful as I could have or should have, and for that I apologize. "
You are not generally disrespectful. I have little respect for your arguments, because they are not very good. But you're a nice person, generally, and I have respect for that. As I said, your falseness in this was minor. Where it came from was more significant. The way you argue, and I can only be led to believe the way you think, is wrong. In my opinion.
"I can sum up my polical outlook like this: I believe in self reliance. I believe that everyone has the power to accomplish whatever they want to as long as they are free to do so. I believe that everyone is responsible for their own well being, their own life, and their own accomplishments. I know people fall on hard times and that at times they need help. I believe when someone makes a decision for you, defines what you can and can't do, say, listen to, eat, or read, you lose an opportunity to learn. I believe the less other people make decisions for you, the better your life will be. The more decisions others make for you, the more reliant you become on them, which takes away from you opportunity, identity, and knowledge. "
"I understand people feel differently, and I respect that."
Kay. Here's the problem. I agree with your sentiments about self-reliance. The issue is for me, really, and has always been, that the way you talk about "freedom" and the way you define "self-reliance" is hardly universal. You take a universal concept, like that, and you claim that SS or SM are in contravention of that principle. But it's absurd. It's absurd because your brand of "self-reliance" is nothing other than exactly the kind of independence and freedom *you* want. And what you want serves you. No surprise, but you can't take yourself out of that and see it for what it is. You don't sympathize with people who abhor money, banks, credit, national government, even language and family and society. Yet these people often alienate themselves out of a sense of, yes, "self-reliance." But society, family, language, government, money- these things are not about self-reliance. Rather, self-reliance is about distinguishing ones'self, about serving ones'self within society. Bully, and you can still believe in all that stuff, and believe also that SS or SM are freeing. Money, and credit, and family and language are freeing. They bind us to specific obligations, but they free us to accomplish much more with our lives. As does the government, when its care is undertaken by thoughtful people. Yet those who preach self-reliance also preach the destruction of the society that allows them to pursue it. They abhor government on the very principles that that government was established to protect. They go, frankly, too far. And it's selfishness. That's the bottom line here. "I have what I have, and I don't believe in society well enough to be a part of it. Not really." That's what this argument sounds like to me. Because of all the people who preach self-reliance, few people have actually read the essays which helped popularize the term. And, spoiler alert, they are works praising the acts of a government that provided the freedoms of intellectual and business pursuits made possible by mandatory public education. Yeah- Emerson himself believed that self-reliance was a necessary trait made possibly by a supportive society and government. Shocker.
"To me, when the government makes a choice for me, they are robbing me of an opportunity to grow." So you should be allowed to grow when your parents decide to yank you out of school at 12 to work in the fields. Because "self-reliant" people do shit like that. It's a palace made of sugar crystals Geraine. It's nonsense. It's as much nonsense as claiming that the government is actually all that good at this stuff. It's nonsense to kid yourself into thinking you actually have some purity of motivation. Nobody does. You don't. You just want to believe what you like to believe.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I believe that everyone has the power to accomplish whatever they want to as long as they are free to do so. I believe that everyone is responsible for their own well being, their own life, and their own accomplishments.
Geraine, That reads like an idealistic platitude and not a really well thought out coherent belief. I don't mean to be hostile, but you must see that not everyone has the power to accomplish whatever they want. Some one born with cerebral palsy or down syndrome is not going to be able to do many many things no matter how much freedom they are given. Those are extreme examples, but they aren't exceptional, they are part of a continuum of human ability. Many people really are not smart enough to complete a professional degree. A lot of people simply do not have the ability to understand enough math to understand compound interest let alone distinguish between different investment portfolios. Many people are borderline autistic and thus lack the social skills needed for a successful career. Some people, through no fault of their own loose their jobs because the company they work for failed. Certainly you must recognize that.
There are many people out there who have the innate capability to do far better than they are doing, but there are also many out there who are performing their best and still not succeeding.
What if any obligation do you think we as a society have to those people?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Orincoro, I'd really appreciate it if we could move away from talking about Geraine and what he has or has not claimed in the past and focus on discussing the ideas he has presented. I think there we have some very interesting issues to discuss and your tack is unlikely to lead to a productive discussion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Geraine, I wonder if you'd be willing to try articulate what you mean by self-reliance.
I ask, because the way I see it no human being is literally self-reliant. We are social animals. We depend on others in almost every way imaginable. The very words in which we think are words we would not know if we had not learned them for others. In modern society, we are deeply interdependent. We eat food grown by others and processed by others, we wear clothing sewn by others, we live in houses built by others. We work using skills we have learned from others and using materials produced by others. We build on ideas that come from others. We work in businesses that are the collaborative effort of a huge number of people. We and everything we use is transported on roads maintained by the community. Our property and our freedoms are protected by the community. If you and I had been born in the slums of Bombay, chances are we would enjoy none of the wealth, knowledge or privilege we currently enjoy. Credit for our well being belongs as much to the community in which we live as it does to our personal efforts.
So when I hear Americans (and residents of other wealthy nations) talking about being self-reliant, what I hear is an enormous lack of gratitude for the great benefits of being a member of this society.
But I don't sense that you are an ingrate and so I suspect that when you say "self-reliant" you mean something very different from what I hear. I'd like to know what that is.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm afraid that because of Orincoro's personal attacks, Geraine will not return to answer my questions. Which is a pity because I have a genuine interest in understanding where he is coming from.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Rabbit, good posts.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I'll see if I can identify what Geraine means by self-reliance. Geraine, if I'm wrong or if I'm putting words in your mouth, please correct me.
This last year, I was a campaign staffer for a federal campaign. The only other specifics I'll give is that it was for a democrat, and my job was as a persuasion oriented field organizer. My responsibility through most of the campaign was to speak with independents, frustrated democrats, and conservatives and try to convince them to vote for my candidate. One of the things we do in persuasion is to learn to read between the lines. At a fundamental level, you're right, Rabbit. Geraine is misrepresenting his position by labeling it "self-reliance." Society is interdependent and connected at its very core, and all personal success stems from the aid, work, or compliance of others.
What Geraine seems to be suggesting implicitly, is that he values a society that allows for greater reward to be given to those who work hardest. Assuming a level playing field, Geraine would hope that those who take the opportunities they're presented with receive the benefit of those opportunities. Further, assuming that all parties were given the same opportunities, it wouldn't be right to take a part of Geraine's earnings and give it to another who chose not to take the opportunity. I believe that's what drives Geraine's discomfort with entitlements.
Geraine is working hard, and a productive member of society. He's a part of the interdependent network by providing some service society needs, and in return he's able to pay for things to bolster his position. (He can pay the people who build his house, pay for the clothing sewn by others, etc.) In Geraine's mind, he's already contributing to the interdependent network by his work. So how is it right that the government is allowed to further take from his earnings to provide for those who aren't contributing to society? The idea of socialized medicine is troublesome, because it means that he's paying for the healthcare of many folks who chose not to get it in the first place. If he's willing to do the work and find a plan that works for him and his family, why should he have to accept a government plan? Geraine is willing to build his own investment portfolio and build his own retirement. Why should he have to cover his own retirement, plus the retirement plans of those who don't take the same opportunities?
I believe Geraine's core argument isn't so much that he believes in "self-reliance," rather he believes that it is wrong that when he is rewarded for his hard work, that a part of the reward is taken from him and given to those who don't do the same level of work. This is what is often called "an inhibition of freedom" or "redistribution of wealth" or "class warfare." All are technically incorrect ways to describe the situation, but that's how it's perceived.
Further, I also believe Geraine isn't unsympathetic or ungrateful to the system that enables him to succeed. He works as a member of that system, he re-entrenches it. He's one of those folks that sews the clothes, builds the homes, or teaches languages to others. And when someone is deprived of their ability to work or contribute, Geraine does say they should receive assistance.
But, I believe Rabbit is correct in pointing out that the playing field is inherently unbalanced in our society. There are developmental disabilities that make it impossible for folks to contribute to society. There are environmental factors that deprive people of the opportunities that others get to take advantage of. In order to survive, some folks need to drop out of school to get a job to pay bills. While that covers their immediate need of survival, there are the opportunity costs to dropping out of school. Education itself isn't equal across our country with good schools and poor ones. Opportunities aren't provided equally, thus we have folks who are perpetually in need of assistance due to no fault of their own. Sentiments of "If they just worked harder" fall upon deaf ears with me when I see folks like Paris Hilton waltzing about carelessly with unearned cash and I see parents working four jobs between the two of them and still having trouble making ends meet.
In an ideal world, I would agree with your beliefs, Geraine. If people really did have equal opportunities, and some folks took them and some folks didn't, I wouldn't want to take a portion of the bounty earned by the winners and give it to the folks who weren't trying. But that's not the world we have. And, in my mind, we will never have that world. But that doesn't mean it's not a world we shouldn't work towards. Some folks believe that the government is the one causing these problems. As you pointed out, you don't like it when people make decisions for you. I assume this is the crux of your opposition to socialized programs. ("You have to pay into social security, you have to pay for socialized medicine, etc.") The thing is, we are, by and large, a country of workers. People do try to take advantage of the opportunities they're provided with, but some don't get many opportunities. You view the government as intruding upon your prosperity, I see the government as an agent of opportunity. More than just the protections from disaster, war, fire, etc, the government can help folks help themselves.
My state senator and US senator are both pretty good examples of this. My state senator was born in Korea and was a refugee to the United States. He was adopted by an American family and through different social programs was able to pick himself up to the level of being a state senator. My US Senator's father was a World War II veteran who ran a nickle and dime store. He was later diagnosed with MS and was unable to continue running the store. My Senator's family had to go on food stamps, she used public education, she had to take loans to pay for college, but in the end her family was able to prosper. Among her siblings it's now a family of doctors, teachers, lawyers, and her a US Senator. If it weren't for the opportunities provided by the government, they wouldn't have been able to survive after her father's disability. These programs can bring upward mobility, the programs can bring, as you describe, freedom.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
No, I'm here. Sorry, I've been having a really hectic day here at work. We are nearing Year End and it seems like every one of my clients is processing bonus payrolls with special tax withholding requests.
I certainly think we should take care of those that can't take care of themselves. People with disabilities should be provided for. If someone is physically or mentally unable to be self reliant, then I truly believe they should be taken care of. I have no problem with my taxes going to help those people. I do believe it is a responsibility of society.
Those that are physically and mentally able to be self reliant however should be so with minimal interference from the government. I am fine with short term programs to help those in need when they need it. The problem is that these programs are too easily taken advantage of, and some are turning into a long term rather than a short term solution.
Unemployment is an example. The average time for someone to find a new job right now is about 33 weeks, according to MSNBC.
Benefits were already triple that at 99 weeks, and with this tax package these benefits will be extended again for another year, to 151 weeks.
This is what I don't agree with. I am fine with giving unemployment benefits that are sincerely looking for a new job.
I realize I probably sounded like a cold hearted bastard when I posted about self reliance. Let me clarify. Those that can't help themselves should be taken care of. I agree with you 100% on that point. Those that can take care of themselves however, should.
I know there is no simple answer. People will get horrible diseases and not be able to take care of themselves. I think those people should be taken care of. What I want though is to take care of those that need it, while not rewarding those who are able to take care of themselves but choose not to.
The reason I brought up the old "Teach a man to fish" adage was because I think that there are better ways than throwing money at a problem to make it go away. I would be ok if part of unemployment consisted of some type of schooling that would allow people to develop marketable skills, classes on how to start your own business, etc. This would create a way for the unemployed to get off the unemployment rolls sooner, while providing them with training.
I really do think society has a responsibility to help people become self reliant. I simply don't see the government helping in that regard. Short term programs are becoming long term programs. I really believe that the people that vote for these programs may care about the people they are helping, but they care more about the votes.
The more a person relies on others instead of themselves (if they are able), the more society as a whole suffers. Everyone is told it is not their fault they are poor, fat, uneducated, etc. It is societies fault they are poor, McDonald's fault they are fat, and the school system's fault they are uneducated. It is this type of attitude that I disagree with.
I hope this came across clearly. I really do appreciate the discussion Rabbit.
ETA: Vadon, I liked your post very much. I hope my post shows that I agree with you on many of your points. I really do think that we have a responsibility to help those in need, I just think that at times we go overboard.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Geraine, at some level, I agree about people blaming others. But at another level, I think you have to look at bigger picture. Yes, person X's decision to eat at McD's every day is a huge part of why they are fat. But is it fair to ignore that the nearest grocery store is 15 miles away, no buses go to it, can't afford car and they have an appt where the kitchen is tiny and has only a broken stove with no microwave. A little less clear cut perhaps? Can you honestly say that in that case you would still find a way to eat healthy food?
This isn't necessarily to excuse people of responsibility but understanding how they got there helps if we actually want to solve the problem. Lecturing the fat person on personal responsibility won't help, but maybe providing affordable food would.
I think it is very easy to look at our successes and view them as ours, without realizing just how many advantages we have. Poverty is more than a lack of money.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
If you believe government has a responsibility to make people self reliant, that is actually a massive argument in favor of social welfare programs, and massively expanding what you call the nanny state. For getting people on their feet and into work, as well as keeping food on tables, nothing has been better than things like the dole and educational assistance.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: If you believe government has a responsibility to make people self reliant, that is actually a massive argument in favor of social welfare programs, and massively expanding what you call the nanny state. For getting people on their feet and into work, as well as keeping food on tables, nothing has been better than things like the dole and educational assistance.
how are you defining self-reliance? this question is directed to all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
You first.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Scholarette, I understand what you're trying to say with your example. But you've picked convenient circumstances that probably aren't realistic in most situations. It would be easy to say that Person A is overweight because, in essence, they can't get to a grocery store and, even if they could, would have no way to prepare the food they buy, but I think you'd need to demonstrate that this is true for a significant percentage of the population before it becomes a convincing argument. And, at any rate, it still boils down to the fact that it costs more to eat more, even at McDonald's. A one-dollar burger usually has fewer calories than a five-dollar burger. People that are overweight from frequently eating fast food have chosen to pay for more calories, when they could have been saving the money to help improve their other financial situations. They've chosen high-fat items, when most fast-food restaurants have lower-fat options. They've chosen to refill their cop with soda when there was tea and water available. At the very, very least, we have to expect our fellow adult citizens to have some concept of the correlation between the calories they eat and the weight they gain, and to grasp that the money they spend on one thing cannot be saved or spent on something else. I personally believe that much of "sympathy" poor, overweight people garner comes from the fact that our society has decided that they're too dumb or uneducated to understand those basic concepts. I find that to be tragic.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Food deserts is a good google search. I did overstate distance from grocery store (didnt remember what the def of food desert was), but having done shopping by bike and walking, even a mile is pretty far.
[ December 18, 2010, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: scholarette ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Unemployment is an example. The average time for someone to find a new job right now is about 33 weeks, according to MSNBC.
Benefits were already triple that at 99 weeks, and with this tax package these benefits will be extended again for another year, to 151 weeks.
This is what I don't agree with. I am fine with giving unemployment benefits that are sincerely looking for a new job.
If you seriously believe that the reason so many people are out of work for so many weeks is because they are not "sincerely looking for a new job", then you are either deliberately ignorant, or need more personal experience looking for a job in an economic downturn.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Unemployment is an example. The average time for someone to find a new job right now is about 33 weeks, according to MSNBC.
Benefits were already triple that at 99 weeks, and with this tax package these benefits will be extended again for another year, to 151 weeks.
This is what I don't agree with. I am fine with giving unemployment benefits that are sincerely looking for a new job.
If you seriously believe that the reason so many people are out of work for so many weeks is because they are not "sincerely looking for a new job", then you are either deliberately ignorant, or need more personal experience looking for a job in an economic downturn.
The latter is really no guarantee of anything, considering plenty of people do still find work. Maybe Geraine would end up being one of them, which would only reinforce the point in his mind.
In general, relying on personal experience for things like that seems like a less-than-optimal approach.
Edit to add: I'm not really trying to offer commentary on the sentiment itself, one way or the other. But I was moving near the start of the financial meltdown, and I found myself looking for work during a time that was, statistically, one of the worst months in terms of private sector jobs lost. Nevertheless, I found a private sector job in less than a month, with, in all honesty, very little effort on my part.
I'm not saying that, therefore, anyone can. I'm just saying... well, what I said above. Personal experience is by no means guaranteed to teach him what you expect it to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
As many times as it takes.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In general, relying on personal experience for things like that seems like a less-than-optimal approach.
Experience isn't necessary, just a little imagination is all that's required. This isn't a shot, Geraine, just some constructive criticism. When you consider what goes into obtaining employment that will support one's family and take into account what they have to offer and their environment, well, the choice between unemployment and taking a menial job or perhaps one that pays much less than their previous one did becomes suddenly much clearer. Because of course generally folks have to stay pretty close to home to find a new job rather than completely uproot their families and lives, that entailing all sorts of other expenses both in time and other resources.
And why should someone who has spent their working life just say, "No, I refuse to take unemployment for long, it's a matter of pride," if they're honestly looking for work and doing so in a strenuous way? They paid into unemployment themselves when they were working. When you get into a car accident and you're insured you don't say, "Well, this is a hideously expensive affair, but I'm not going to avail myself of the insurance that I've been paying into because that's demeaning somehow."
The problem is, real viable unemployment benefits that do the kinds of things your stated ideology actually supports would involve things like training, loans for education and moving, and so on and so forth, and that would involve...tax increases. They would also be longer-term.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the way this all turned out was pretty ironically a good example vindicating gobbarment safety nets, yanno. I should document it and draw upon it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: When you consider what goes into obtaining employment that will support one's family and take into account what they have to offer and their environment, well, the choice between unemployment and taking a menial job or perhaps one that pays much less than their previous one did becomes suddenly much clearer.
I could be wrong but for easy math purposes, if you take $1000 a month in unemployment but you go out and get a job earning $800 a month, you can still take $200 a month in unemployment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I could be wrong but for easy math purposes, if you take $1000 a month in unemployment but you go out and get a job earning $800 a month, you can still take $200 a month in unemployment.
The last time I drew unemployment pay, which was over a decade ago, this was not the case.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The last time I drew unemployment pay, which was over a decade ago, this was not the case.
It might vary from state to state. I doublechecked and it is true for PA.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Geraine, Sorry I've taken so long to respond. I too am very busy with end of semester work.
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I realize I probably sounded like a cold hearted bastard when I posted about self reliance. Let me clarify. Those that can't help themselves should be taken care of. I agree with you 100% on that point. Those that can take care of themselves however, should.
On this much, we fully agree. But it isn't necessarily easy to tell the difference between those who can't take care of themselves, those who could take care of themselves with the proper training and those who simply won't take care of themselves. Given that we are going to make mistakes, I'd rather err on the side of generosity. I'd rather pay taxes that end up giving assistance to a few free loaders than keep the money and turn people in genuine need out on the streets.
I think there is plenty of room for debate about the best way to give that aid and the best ways to determine who really needs it and who doesn't. But that debate should start with trying to assess the genuine needs, not a debate about cutting taxes.
quote:Unemployment is an example. The average time for someone to find a new job right now is about 33 weeks, according to MSNBC.
Benefits were already triple that at 99 weeks, and with this tax package these benefits will be extended again for another year, to 151 weeks.
This is what I don't agree with. I am fine with giving unemployment benefits that are sincerely looking for a new job.
You got something very different from that article than I did, which I believe highlights the difference in our outlooks.
When I read that article, what I saw was that basic unemployment insurance covers 26 weeks (6 months). That's 7 weeks shorter than the average time people, in this current recession, spend looking for a job and that's just the average, which would mean that around half the people unemployed won't be able to find a job after more than 6 months searching. That really sucks. Reading further, I found that there are currently 1.4 million Americans who are looking for work but have been unable to find it for nearly 2 years. I thought about the toll unemployment takes on people not just financially, but emotionally, physically and socially. I thought about the stress that puts on families and relationships. I thought about my friend who has been hunting for work 4 months and whose wife has just filed for divorce because she can't take the stress any more. I thought how lucky I am to have a secure job in this economy. I thought how truly dreadful it would be to be out of work and hunting for a job right now. To me, there was no question about whether we should extend the emergency benefit program. To me, doing so was a moral imperative.
You seemed to think "Those freeloaders need a kick in the butt".
You looked at the proposal to extended emergency benefits for another year and presumed it would allow everyone to collect unemployment for 151 weeks. I did a little research and discovered that the proposal is to extend the emergency program that allows some people to receive unemployment for 99 week, for another year. There is no current plan to provide any assistance to those 1.4 million who have been looking for jobs for more than 99 weeks. I also discovered that relatively few people are eligible for the emergency unemployment. This aid is focused in areas that have the highest unemployment rates.
I don't know why we see such different things in this data. I don't really understand why our responses are so different. Like you, I've always worked hard to support myself. My family never needed government aid to make ends meet. I've never been unemployed. I believe we share the same religion and grew up in the same region of the country. So why does one of us look at unemployment statistics and see free loaders and the other seeing the same stats thinks "There but for the grace of God, go I."
Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
Just wanted to briefly address a past point...
quote:Originally posted by PSI Teleport: And, at any rate, it still boils down to the fact that it costs more to eat more, even at McDonald's. A one-dollar burger usually has fewer calories than a five-dollar burger. People that are overweight from frequently eating fast food have chosen to pay for more calories, when they could have been saving the money to help improve their other financial situations. They've chosen high-fat items, when most fast-food restaurants have lower-fat options.
No, I don't think this is true. Sure, a one-dollar burger may have fewer calories than a five-dollar burger, maybe. But three one-dollar burgers will not have fewer calories than a five-dollar burger, yet it will still cost significantly less. So in your scenario, many times it does in fact cost less to eat more calories. And based on what I've seen (which is obviously anecdotal), fast-food restaurants typically have few lower-fat options on the extreme value menus.
quote:I personally believe that much of "sympathy" poor, overweight people garner comes from the fact that our society has decided that they're too dumb or uneducated to understand those basic concepts. I find that to be tragic.
That's probably true. Although, my sympathy stems from the likelihood that their being poor creates more anxieties and hardships that in turn relegate obesity to being an issue of much less immediate importance, that is, from their current perspective, obesity is the least of their worries.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There is also a big problem that healthy foods like fresh fruits and vegetables and whole grains are more expensive than junk food.
quote:Processed foods have become cheaper as real food grows more expensive. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that between 1985 and 2000 the retail price of carbonated soft drinks rose by 20 percent, fats and oils by 35 percent, and sugars and sweets by 46 percent. Compare that to the 118 percent increase in the retail price of fresh fruits and vegetables. In 15 years the price of vegetables ballooned six times as fast as the cost of sugary, calorie-rich, nutrient-poor sodas.
I just checked Safeway's online website for the Seattle area. Their store brand white sandwich bread is $079/lb. Orowheat whole grain bread costs $4.79/lb.
And the problem is exacerbated by numerous factors. Poor people tend to work more hours, need to travel further to stores, and have worse cooking facilities, so its harder for them to make a healthy home cooked meal.
Cheap calories are going to be lower in vitamins, minerals and protein, which means that they are also less satisfying. You are less likely to crave more calories than you need if you are eating healthy (expensive) food. Although it seems like a contradiction, malnutrition is one of the key factors associate with obesity.
[ December 20, 2010, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:But I was moving near the start of the financial meltdown, and I found myself looking for work during a time that was, statistically, one of the worst months in terms of private sector jobs lost. Nevertheless, I found a private sector job in less than a month, with, in all honesty, very little effort on my part.
I'm not saying that, therefore, anyone can. I'm just saying... well, what I said above. Personal experience is by no means guaranteed to teach him what you expect it to.
My mother, a die hard republican, opponent of the nanny state, and proponent of personal responsibility, has been out of work for 6 months now with only a brief stint of a few weeks as a contractor. She is constantly looking for work within an hour and a half range of her home in the field of quality assurance engineering. If you think she's the type of person who isn't looking hard enough, you're gravely mistaken. The fact is, the economy sucks and finding work is tough. The job she was laid off from was one she'd been at for about a year and a half and which she had taken a 30% pay cut for when she was laid off from her previous job at the start of the recession. As long as we're throwing anecdotal evidence around.
I also have a close friend whose father just committed suicide after being out of work for 9 months and unable to find work. The family was under serious financial strain and this also led to further emotional strain on the marriage. As Rabbit pointed out, unemployment has further reaching affects beyond reduced income.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I just checked Safeway's online website for the Seattle area. Their store brand white sandwich bread is $079/lb. Orowheat whole grain bread costs $4.79/lb.
To be fair, there has never been a time when I've gone into QFC (in Seattle) and seen high quality wheat bread available for more than $2 for a 24 ounce loaf, or $1.33 a pound. Still more expensive, but nowhere near as expensive as your comparison suggests. Many of the high prices on semi-luxury items like better wheat bread are ways to extract oligopoly pricing from people who are brand loyal, and the grocery store rotates sales through those brands to compete for customers who are shopping based on price.
There are also store and discount brand 100% whole grain wheat breads on the same shelves that aren't quite as nice in taste, but are just as healthy, that typically cost similar prices per pound to the nicer brands on sale.
But there are serious and important concerns about food deserts and the like. This is one of the reasons I support government interventions for low income such as cash grants, because not all of getting food is having money for the food (what's more, more cash being spent in an area makes it much more likely to attract grocers).
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
fugu, I think your definition of what constitutes a high quality full grain bread and mine must differ. I've never seen it for under $3 a loaf anywhere in the US, including QFCs in Seattle.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm not sure where this obligation of self-reliance comes from, anyway. Look at homemakers, for instance. They're a large segment of the population who have the ability to support themselves financially and have chosen not to. And I think that's a great lifestyle choice.
Of course, in most cases they have someone else who's agreed to support them. The fact remains that they're a "drain on others," and there's nothing wrong with that. My point is simply that there's nothing obligatory about supporting yourself financially with your own labor.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Destineer, While I agree with your general point, I think you've picked a poor example. Stay at home parents aren't "a drain on others". They work very hard and make a significant contribution to their families even if they aren't being compensated monetarily for their work.
If you are looking for an example of people who are a net drain on society, pick Paris Hilton and Prince William, two people who've never done an honest days labor in their lives and likely never will. Prince William and the entire royal family are even supported by tax payers.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm happy to help you become better informed.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm confused fugu. Didn't those photos show the regular price of those breads to be over $4 a loaf? Even the sale price was more than double the cost of cheap white bread. You claimed you'd never seen it for over $2/loaf. By my math, 2 for $5 is over $2/loaf.
It's also not what I consider a high quality whole grain bread, but yeah, many people would.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps you could clarify what you consider high quality whole grain bread (or at least, in the class of Orowheat, which you seem to consider an exemplar). On what do you base the quality assessment? If nutrition, I have provided handy information (check the last link) that, nutritionally, the breads are comparable to Orowheat. If taste, then I submit that it is extremely subjective, and the breads I provided would probably fare well in a blind taste test with Orowheat (while cheaper wheat breads probably wouldn't).
As for your comment on regular prices, did you not read my earlier post when you responded to it? I quite clearly stated that there is always some bread in that class available on sale, every single time I enter that store and peruse the bread section, which has been several times a month for around five months now (since we moved to Seattle). Which brands are on sale rotates (and I think I've seen Orowheat in that rotation, though I don't keep track), but there is always one of the good whole wheat offerings on sale for around $2 a loaf (though I think occasionally the cheapest is around $2.50). The price of good whole wheat bread is not the regular price, it is the price people are required to pay when they are in the store.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Stay at home parents aren't "a drain on others". They work very hard and make a significant contribution to their families even if they aren't being compensated monetarily for their work.
The same is true for many of the unemployed, who we're not counting (for purposes of this discussion) as "self-reliant."
Of course homemakers spend their time wisely and make a valuable contribution, but that doesn't make them self-reliant. Self-reliance means you can support yourself with the money you make from your work, and homemakers definitely can't do that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Perhaps you could clarify what you consider high quality whole grain bread (or at least, in the class of Orowheat, which you seem to consider an exemplar).
I don't actually consider Orowheat high quality whole grain bread. It was just the closest thing to it I could find on that website.
I consider something to be quality whole wheat bread if my husband likes it, which pretty much means that it is comparable to the bread I made regularly before I was diagnosed with Celiac disease. The short answer is, if its soft and squishy, it's not high quality bread.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:I consider something to be quality whole wheat bread if my husband likes it, which pretty much means that it is comparable to the bread I made regularly before I was diagnosed with Celiac disease. The short answer is, if its soft and squishy, it's not high quality bread.
We'll just go with "as good as Orowheat", then, as comparable to your exemplar was all I was trying to suggest.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I'm happy to help you become better informed.
Did you go to the store just to take those photos? If so, I'm kinda impressed with your dedication to this discussion.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Stay at home parents aren't "a drain on others". They work very hard and make a significant contribution to their families even if they aren't being compensated monetarily for their work.
The same is true for many of the unemployed, who we're not counting (for purposes of this discussion) as "self-reliant."
Of course homemakers spend their time wisely and make a valuable contribution, but that doesn't make them self-reliant. Self-reliance means you can support yourself with the money you make from your work, and homemakers definitely can't do that.
In my family, my husband does not make enough money to pay for child care (which is what I provide by not working). So, is he still self reliant, being as he can not make it economically without my labor? Within the family unit, perhaps individual self reliance is not really measurable amongst the middle class.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Did you go to the store just to take those photos? If so, I'm kinda impressed with your dedication to this discussion.
The store's about two blocks away, so this wasn't a big trip. Plus, I telecommute, so getting out of the house now and then is a good idea.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Is this by any chance the Wallingford QFC?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nope, Capitol Hill on Broadway. We're up near Broadway and Roy. We're up in Wallingford occasionally, though not at the QFC, visiting Gas Works Park.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As for your comment on regular prices, did you not read my earlier post when you responded to it?
fugu, Did you read what you posted earlier? Let me quote it for you.
quote:To be fair, there has never been a time when I've gone into QFC (in Seattle) and seen high quality wheat bread available for more than $2 for a 24 ounce loaf, or $1.33 a pound.
You did not say that you had never been to QFC when you couldn't find high quality wheat bread for under $2 a loaf. You said you had never seen high quality wheat bread available for more than $2 a loaf.
I'm perfectly willing to accept that you meant something other than what you said. It was however what you said that I was contesting and I did in fact find it confusing that you posted data that contradicted your own statement.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I spent the whole week packing to I didn't get a chance to post.
I wanted to thank everyone in the thread. I'm glad the discussion has progessed the way it has. I'm reading your posts with an open mind and most of it makes sense.
As far as unemployment is concerned, I am curious to know if there are jobs that people are not taking because they are making more money on unemployment. I have a friend that has been unemployed for about 6 months, and he has turned down 3 job offers because they offered a lower hourly rate than he was being paid before he got laid off. My friend was making $16 an hour, and he wouldn't take a $14 an hour job because he thought he was worth more than that.
I know people are hurting right now. I hope I don't lose my job, though it is pretty stable. If I did however, I would do whatever I had to. I'd flip burgers during the day and work a graveyard shift doing security or whatever else to support my family. I know not everyone has the health or desire to do that, but you do what you have to do.
One minor quibble to Rakeesh though. Employees don't pay into State Unemployment at all in most states. In most states it is purely an employer tax.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My brother-in-law was laid off from a company that he had worked for for 20 years. It took him a year and a half to find another job. It is not at the salary he made before but it is something. In the meantime, he worked off jobs for neighbors and my sister worked three jobs. My nieces worked as well as going to school. Even so, they would not have kept their home without unemployment benefits and the extension of COBRA benefits.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
My apologies, I munged how I typed that sentence. I meant I had never seen it unavailable for any more than about that much.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:One minor quibble to Rakeesh though. Employees don't pay into State Unemployment at all in most states. In most states it is purely an employer tax.
That's really is kind of a silly quibble. Employee compensation includes both wages and benefits. Unemployment insurance is a benefit of employment. Whether its paid for by the employee or the employer is just a matter of book keeping that doesn't change the fact that the employee has to earn the benefit to be worth employing.
As for the question of how many people are making more on unemployment than they would make working, it certainly isn't zero. Your friend who turned down a $14/hour job isn't likely to be one of them since unemployment benefits are typically a little less than half what you earned as your last job.
And while I appreciate your sentiment that you'd do anything necessary to support your family rather than collect unemployment, I don't think it would be as simple a decision as you think. If you had to choose between making 1/2 your current salary on unemployment, or 1/4 of your current salary at McDonald's, which would you choose knowing that it isn't just you but also your family that would suffer? If you had to choose between spending your time hunting for a good paying job, and working double shifts at a low paying job, what would you choose? Would you accept the first low paying job you could find, or keeping job hunting with the hope that you could find something better? Those aren't easy questions to answer when they are merely hypothetical. When you actually have to do the math and see that you won't be able to pay the mortgage and buy food for the kids, its a different story.
It's also worth considering that it can be hard to find even a low paying job when you are qualified for a much better position. Businesses aren't stupid. They know someone who has an engineering degree isn't going to want to keep flipping burgers once the economy improves. When there are so many people looking for jobs, what makes you think you could get double shifts?
[ December 20, 2010, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Also, try it when you are over 50. Or, like my parents, over 75.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:That's really is kind of a silly quibble. Employee compensation includes both wages and benefits. Unemployment insurance is a benefit of employment. Whether its paid for by the employee or the employee is just a matter of book keeping that doesn't change the fact that the employee has to earn the benefit to be worth employing.
Most definitely.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you are looking for an example of people who are a net drain on society, pick Paris Hilton and Prince William, two people who've never done an honest days labor in their lives and likely never will. Prince William and the entire royal family are even supported by tax payers.
Not very fond of the British royal family in general, but fair's fair: William served in their armed forces. You might quibble about how much honest work he was allowed to do, but it's unlikely he just sat about all day hobnobbing with admirals.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
And as for Paris Hilton, I'm starting to think you never even watched The Simple Life, Rabbit.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I stand by my claim that neither Paris Hilton nor Prince William have ever done an honest days work.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I stand by my claim that neither Paris Hilton nor Prince William have ever done an honest days work.
what is an 'honest days work' to you?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I stand by my claim that neither Paris Hilton nor Prince William have ever done an honest days work.
what is an 'honest days work' to you?
Working on a "reality" show can take up to 12 hours a day for those that are involved.
Rabbit, unemployment may be considered a benefit, but it is not figured into total compensation. Healthare, 401(k) matches, etc are as they directly affect an employees pay. Unemployment, while a benefit, does not directly affect an employee's wages. An employer's SUI rate is determined by turnover within the lookback period, not by any individual employee data. Essentially the likelyhood of you losing your job determines what rate your employer pays.
Good point though, I hadn't really thought about unemployment as a benefit in that way.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... William served in their armed forces. You might quibble about how much honest work he was allowed to do, but it's unlikely he just sat about all day hobnobbing with admirals.
Yep, probably not as rough as Prince Harry in Afghanistan, but more than enough to reach the bar we're currently at.
quote: William, 25, will share a four-berth cabin aboard the vessel and be woken at 0630 every morning.
Rear Admiral Cooling said he would not be treated any different to other personnel.
"If we treated him like some super VIP and tailored a programme for him and walked around on egg shells, then that would be difficult," he said.
"But he's not, he's going to come just like any other young officer and do all the things that young officers get involved in."
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Nope, Capitol Hill on Broadway. We're up near Broadway and Roy. We're up in Wallingford occasionally, though not at the QFC, visiting Gas Works Park.
It's a bit belated, but welcome to Seattle.
I live near Greenlake, myself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Geraine,
quote: One minor quibble to Rakeesh though. Employees don't pay into State Unemployment at all in most states. In most states it is purely an employer tax.
Yes, I'm aware of that, at least in my state. But you're also aware, I'm quite sure, that what I suspect are your own economic politics answer this objection quite handily: this tax gets passed on to employees in the form of lowered wages, and consumers as higher prices. Well, that's also basic economics, really, but conservatives do enjoy pointing out that aspect of economics whenever 'tax' is mentioned.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)