Mommy Of The Week
I try to answer all my mail, although I get to some of it a bit later than I'd like due to my failure, as of yet, to have myself cloned. Only a tiny number of the questions I get actually make my column. Here's one of the questions that won't -- one that got weirder and weirder as the woman, "Karen," replied to my responses to her:
Dear Amy:My son recently celebrated his 10th birthday with family and friends. There were about 20 people present to celebrate with him. He received approximately $250 in cash as gifts. When his grandparents learned of the amount of cash he received, they immediately began instructing him to put half of the money in the bank to save. However, it is my position that when children receive money for a birthday gift that they may use all or part of the money for whatever item/items they choose. I treat it the same as if he had received a noncash gift--no one would ever tell the child he must save part of his gifts and cannot enjoy them. My parents were very miffed when I explained my position on this to them. They could not believe that I would let him spend all of the money on whatever he wished.
What do you think?
Thanks!
My reply:
See all the people out there going bankrupt because they don't understand economics? I think it's very important to teach kids about saving money, and to overcome the human irrationality for short term gain over longterm prudence, so I'm with your parents.Furthermore, I'd not only teach a kid to save, I'd teach him how good it feels to help others (build his character, in other words), and do as a woman I met recently does, and ask him to go to Staples and buy a backpack and school supplies for a poor kid and see if it's something he'd like to do again. When she said she was going to make her girls do this to teach them, I told her I thought forcing them to do it wasn't the best idea.
Helping others actually feels good, and I felt it was wiser to tell the girls they were going to do this with their allowance once, and then let them see whether it was something they'd want to continue. Forcing people to behave well isn't the same as inspiring them to do it.
In short, I think kids are too coddled and too indulged, and this money he got is for no accomplishment he made or work he did...it simply comes from being a child who has friends with well-too-do parents and who has well-to-do relatives. And I really think it shouldn't be seen as a windfall but as a way to teach him about money and instill values. Best,-Amy
She writes back:
You are correct in saying that the money he received was for no accomplishment or work he did. The money was "gifts." My understanding of a gift of anything is that the recipient may do as they wish with it.....no strings attached; and, therefore, that is why I took the position I did. Also, $100 of the money came from his absent father (who sent no Christmas gift or card or birthday gift or card last year), and each child present gave about $10.00 so the assumption that everyone is well-to-do is incorrect. I still believe that if the child would have been given noncash presents, no one would have expected him to donate part of them to charity or save them. THEY ARE BIRTHDAY GIFTS to a 10 year old boy. And as far as going to Staples and buying a poor kid a backpack and school supplies, it might surprise you to know that we live at the poverty level as our total monthly income is about $650 per month so my son is a "poor kid." Birthdays and Christmas are the only times this boy is materially indulged so, whereas, I appreciate your opinion, I stand by my original position.
My response:
Yes, technically, that is what a gift is -- "something that the recpient may do as they wish with" -- but he's receiving this gift as a kid. If somebody gave him crack, would you just say, "It was a gift," or would you tell him that crack is dangerous and dispose of it?The income level of the people who give the gifts is immaterial. A kid who, at 10, is getting $250 on his birthday, needs a lesson about money. And if you are, in fact, living at the poverty line, I'd suggest that your kid, more than others, needs lessons about saving money.
But, wait: Your total MONTHLY income is $650? Let's say this is actually the truth, not an exaggeration so you can cling to the idea tha you are correct about letting your son piss away the $250 as he pleases. Excuse me, but how do you even buy food on that? Perhaps that $250 your son got for his birthday should go into a fund for doctor visits. Or to buy him an extra can of beans.
I know, like many people, you weren't really writing to me for advice; you thought I'd glad-hand you for what you're doing and tell you those mean parents of yours are wrong, wrong, wrong! On the contrary, anybody with a kid who's living on $650 a month and it isn't because they're terminally ill, is doing their child a serious disservice. -Amy Alkon
This woman gets more and more ridiculous:
It is really quite easy to prepare nutritious meals. I cook. I spend approximate $225 a month for food and we eat well. My rent is $27, my phone is $8, my lights $35.00. We eat meals of steak, salmon, chicken, soups and stews, fresh vegetables, fresh fruit, etc. I think it is sad that you would actually judge a person's parenting ability on their current financial circumstances. Actually, I was writing to you for advice........I just don't happen to agree with the advice you gave. Sorry.
My reply:
Your rent is $27? What do you rent, a doghouse? How is this possible? Your phone is $8? How do you have an Internet connection? You're writing me from az.net, not the public library on a Yahoo account. $225 a month for steaks and salmon and all the rest? Right. Something's very fishy here.And yes, I judge a person's parenting ability on their ability to provide for their children. Why don't you? If you aren't terminally ill or otherwise disabled, how can you justify having a kid live on this sum of money? Unless that's a lie, so you could justify your behavior. Which is it?
What about your son's medical care? What if he needs to go to the doctor?
Also, you're apparently divorced from your kid's father, or separated, and he's "absent." Pretty bleak existence for a kid. Yet, you had a child with a man who apparently is okay with disappearing from his kid's life.
And clearly, you never wanted advice -- you wanted ammunition that your parents are wrong. But, they're not.
Again, unless you've time-traveled back to the 1800s to rent an apartment, just for starters, it seems unlikely you're telling the truth.
The best thing you could do is listen to your parents, who seem to have values they never managed to impart to you -- at least about money. Maybe about more.
-Amy Alkon
She's in some sort of subsidized housing, probably Section 8. Twenty-seven bucks a month is pretty typical for the tenant's contribution to housing costs.
FWIW, I agree with your advice about the kid and his money
Nance at May 22, 2008 5:09 AM
I concur. They're probably section 8, with a food stamps allotment. How magnanimous of her to let her kid keep the money and spend it any way he wants; see what a good mom she is? Had that been my mom, and our family in that position, she would have insisted I put at least 1/2 of it in the bank. And she'd have been right to do so. My family thankfully is not, so both of my girls get an allowance of $30/month, and they earn other money baby- and pet-sitting. They can spend their money the way that they want, but they both have bank accounts and they know how to save up for a rainy day, and also for the big ticket items they want. We regularly dontate to Goodwill toys and clothes that they've outgrown, and they give their used books to the local shelter. (That was my mom's idea!)
Flynne at May 22, 2008 5:36 AM
Ah, yes, another person proud of what a good job she's doing raising her kid on the dole.
I have to assume that the $225 a month is what she spends in addition to the foodstamps. So those healthy, nutritious foods (along with her rent, utilities, phone, etc.) were subsidized by me and the rest of the taxpaying public.
Wonder how well she's doing at preparing him for the fact that it won't be so easy for him to get the taxpayer subsidy once he turns 18 . . . . After all, knocking a girl up only gets the *girl* welfare, unless he winds up as the custodial parent.
TheOtherOne at May 22, 2008 5:41 AM
Huh, I'm torn on this one. On one hand financial lessons are financial lessons on the other hand he is ten and should get to enjoy some freedom with money before he gets screwed like the rest of of us supporting him and mom. $250 buck even now is a shit load of money especially if the family is subsisting on $650 per month. How the hell is her lazy ass making 650 per month minimum wage would put her at $1250. If you have a kid who's ten why the hell are you not working full time (medical reasons would be the only legit reason)?
Actually given her obvious idea that the world will cover her ass I'm with the grand parents. Shit take half of all of his birth day money and stick it in an ING account. They failed with her and they want to makes sure the kid doesn't end up living on our (or their) coin.
vlad at May 22, 2008 6:14 AM
"I think it is sad that you would actually judge a person's parenting ability on their current financial circumstances." The only reason she might have for living on the public dole is that it's temporary. I'm all for help those who are in random shit situations. That $650 may not be food stamps etc but child support and she maybe going to school. Then fine working and school sucks and I can guess that working, parenting and school sucks even more. If your planning on finishing your education and getting off our backs then we should not judge you harshly as a parent. Now if your ass is staying in public housing cause it's comfortable then non of the comments were harsh enough.
vlad at May 22, 2008 6:20 AM
I can kind of believe her grocery bill, but few people have the self control you'd need to pull it off. In my area at least, around sixty bucks at Sam's or Costco can get you a couple of dozen servings or so of frozen salmon and sirloin steaks. If the rest of her budget goes to things like whole chicken, eggs, fresh produce, dry beans, and rice the bill for a woman and 10-year-old could be pretty darn low. Her boy probably gets free breakfast and lunch through school on weekdays, too.
I'm skeptical of the $650 total though. That's a fair bit less than half-time at minimum wage, she obviously has at least one marketable skill, and any health problems she may have are minor enough that she can prepare full meals from scratch on most days. Also, that food budget's going to explode on her in a few years. When the boy hits puberty he's going to be eating at least three times what he's eating now.
Anyway, I'm with you completely on the savings. Yeah, it's his no strings, but it's part of every parent's job to teach kids how to handle money responsibly especially if they're poor. If they're anywhere near as poor as she says then she's setting that kid up for failure in life if she doesn't teach him to stretch a dollar and save what he can. How in the hell does she think he'll ever escape that poverty hole if he never learns to stop digging?
SeanH at May 22, 2008 6:21 AM
Amy, I have to support you all the way about the idea of banking that money. i had my first bank account when I was six years old and it was quite formative for me. Not only I am putting some money aside for my old days but I got an excellent credit report. In a world where credit cards can be found under any rock, exposing the children to the banking system early can do just good at the end.
As for the "Lifestyle" of the lady who wrote this letter, it really sounds like she's receiving help from the government. How can we expect her to know anything about "Savings"? One of our poets once said "The best way to kill a man is to pay him to do nothing". We can see here when such lack of education leads.
Toubrouk at May 22, 2008 6:26 AM
He could stick $100 in savings and still have enough left over to buy a lot.
Love your advice on this one, Amy!
Pirate Jo at May 22, 2008 6:35 AM
Why the Poor Tend to Stay Poor, Exhibit #495810.
marion at May 22, 2008 6:56 AM
I will disagree here "I'd teach him how good it feels to help others (build his character, in other words)". helping other does not build character it teaches compassion. Life kicking the ever living shit out of you builds character.
marion: That's horrible and false you and I both know it's the educated and powerful keeping them down. Amy is nothing more than a shill for the Illuminati. How can you be so crass with this poor women just trying to live of the work of other, shame.
vlad at May 22, 2008 7:11 AM
"live off the work of others" sorry can't type this morning should read live off the work of others"
vlad at May 22, 2008 7:16 AM
I'd add that going to school is no excuse. Through high school is free and that's why I have a diploma. Because I never went on welfare or to jail, I was never handed college on a platter and I don't see why we should hand college out to those deadbeats who get themselves knocked up as a teen or convicted for something they're entirely guilty of. Let's stop handing out those free rides. Dig ditches, scrub toilets, flip burgers. I had the sense in high school (knowing college was not an option not only because of money but there was no way I was going to stay in my abusive mother's house past 18) to get then marketable skills of shorthand and typing in my high school. The shorthand may now be pretty much obsolete but it put me in jobs that trained me on the job in the computers as they took it over. Why the hell should I have to pay for people with less sense than me to get the college education I couldn't?
Donna at May 22, 2008 7:19 AM
I just wrote her to ask whether she's on public assistance; i.e., "Taxpayers are supporting you and your kid?"
I'll post it if she writes back.
Amy Alkon at May 22, 2008 7:25 AM
"I don't see why we should hand college out to those deadbeats who get themselves knocked up as a teen or convicted for something they're entirely guilty of." Higher skill set mean better job means pay more taxes. This is more of an investment then a freebie.
"Why the hell should I have to pay for people with less sense than me to get the college education I couldn't?" Why the hell should I have to pay for idiots on Medicaid or Medicare that did not get an education (HS means shit for my generation) and worked minimum wage jobs? They made shittier choices than me why should I have to fork over cash to support them while planning (saving and investing) on not being on the public dole when I'm old.
vlad at May 22, 2008 7:40 AM
"(knowing college was not an option not only because of money but there was no way I was going to stay in my abusive mother's house past 18)" and choosing to make it so. While I get that a private university is out for most people getting into a public university and working is certainly not.
vlad at May 22, 2008 7:42 AM
Before someone jumps down my throat I actually had a very similar view for a very long time. The I learned that inmates that were taught job skills (one being commercial diving in Ca) had a much lower recidivism rate. I had to pay for my own dive school (not four years of college but not cheap either) but now those individuals who finished the program are paying taxes and not mooching off me. I see it all as resources and dividends or losses.
vlad at May 22, 2008 7:48 AM
The flaw in her logic is that everything a kid does and has must be filtered through the parents' judgment. The crack analogy works, but for a less extreme case: suppose he got as a gift a Wii. Does that mean he can spend as much time playing video games as he wants, because it's a gift? Every parent I know limits a kid to a certain amount of time engaging in various activities. Does the fact that something is a gift take precedence over parental responsibility to guide a child's behavior and teach them wisdom? The $250 isn't being taken away, it's still the kid's--he just doesn't get to blow it on cigarettes and booze, or whatever he feels like buying. He gets to use it later. That's one of the reasons why people give money instead of goods--it's more flexible.
a kid shouldn't have complete say in the disposition of ANY gift
Quizzical at May 22, 2008 7:51 AM
Vlad, it's not out of reach because we're footing it. I'll even buy your investment argument but, frankly, if that can be argued, invest in those who obeyed the law and who were responsible enough not to procreate before they were making their own way in the world. Maybe I turned 18 at the wrong time (1976) but, at 50, I'm starting to feel (don't worry too late) I should have been a shithead selfish self-centered cunt and used society instead of minding my p's and q's and doing what I was supposed to do. (And, nope, not paying for my medical expenseses, etc.) I don't expect any thanks for that. No one should. But why are we rewarding bad behavior and not even giving good behavior a pat on the head? Investment my ass. So some of them do use it to turn their life around. It's still sending the message that you want a free ride have a baby or hold up a liquor store.
By your theory, a parent that has two kids, one a straight A student and one a fuck-up juvenile delinquent but only money to send one through college, they should send the fuck-up and let the straight A student fend for theirselves. Because maybe a miracle will happen and being given something for nothing the one that's an asshole will turn himself around... Frankly, I think that mentality is biting us on the ass these days. Look how the Gen Y's have to be coddled.
Donna at May 22, 2008 7:59 AM
I'm all for teaching job skills -- I just think the teachee should have to pay for the skill set. If this woman has an income of $650 a month, she can't be working or working much. Note that she has an account with this Internet company az.net. Click on the link and check the prices.
Amy Alkon at May 22, 2008 8:05 AM
Amy,
You would be a wonderful mother. I hope you are one day.
rusty wilson at May 22, 2008 8:08 AM
Eeek! But, thanks. No, not for me, but I always laugh when people say I can't advise parents because I don't have a kid.
Amy Alkon at May 22, 2008 8:09 AM
Donna, I'm with ya - I remember feeling the same way when I went to college. The only ones getting a free ride are the ones who have already screwed up. A friend of mine, valedictorian of her class, didn't get squat. Also, I returned to school recently and saw what a lot of these deadbeats do with the free ride. They get financial aid for textbooks, which they return the next day (unopened) for cash, and they blow their student loans on whatever they want. Sure it'll screw up their credit ratings someday, but do you think they give a rat's fat ass? They're only going to be on some kind of welfare anyway.
Pirate Jo at May 22, 2008 8:12 AM
If your planning on finishing your education and getting off our backs then we should not judge you harshly as a parent. Now if your ass is staying in public housing cause it's comfortable then non of the comments were harsh enough.
Don't know about where she lives, but I hear that the waiting list for section 8 housing in my area is a couple of years long. If that's generally true (and not just a local thing), then someone paying $27 for rent has been on public assistance for a while now. . . .
TheOtherOne at May 22, 2008 8:15 AM
Also, she shows no shame at raising a kid on so little -- and likely, on the sweat of others. In fact, she almost brags about it.
Amy Alkon at May 22, 2008 8:20 AM
Amy, I could get behind that. If it was made conditional that they'd have to pay back the benefit even if they dropped out. That would weed out the losers who just wanted a free ride or a way to dodge working for a living for a few more years. It'd take the burden off the taxpayers, now and in the future. And offer it to those coming from a low-income family that didn't fuck up too, hence, making it fairer. I'd have jumped on it. If my income increased because of a degree, why the heck should I protest at having that increase go back to those who paid for that degree to become possible until it was paid for? Heck, I'd be proud that I paid for it myself and it'd be much better for my self esteem than a free ride.
Donna at May 22, 2008 8:23 AM
As a child I remember getting to spend part of my birthday money while the rest went into a savings account. When I went to college, that money came in handy to buy books, for just the first year (I was in science, those books were over a thousand dollars every year). I have a friend at work who hated her parents while she was growing up for only giving her 20 dollars from all her birthday money from the time she was born until she was 18, but they put all of the rest of that money into a Roth IRA account. At 23 she had enough for a down payment on a house for her and her husband. She was ecstatic. Kids can't appreciate how much it costs to live because they don't pay the rent and support themselves. When he's ten, comic books, candy, and a remote controlled car might be the things to have, but when he's 18 and working at the burger king and can't afford to go to community college, he just might wish his mom put that money away for him.
Anne at May 22, 2008 8:28 AM
"Also, I returned to school recently and saw what a lot of these deadbeats do with the free ride." My school was very different. The only ones blowing their options were the ones who's mom and dad were footing the bill.
The public housing near me has a few week waiting period, but I'm only familiar with special cases like abuse or tragedy situations. I don't know about the general laziness public housing wait time.
"But why are we rewarding bad behavior and not even giving good behavior a pat on the head?" No we are giving someone a chance that made some bad decisions. I'm not advocating just giving the shit away, and definatly not to violent offenders. If the person get their shit together and starts paying taxes then they are paying back. If they fail then screw them and make them pay it back. If having a child isn't enough to get your head out of your ass then you are likely hopeless and the investment was a waste.
vlad at May 22, 2008 8:29 AM
"It'd take the burden off the taxpayers, now and in the future. And offer it to those coming from a low-income family that didn't fuck up too, hence, making it fairer." They do, look at how student loans are structured. While life won't be too pleasant doing college that way it can be done and is done on a regular basis. I'd have done it that way but my parents made too much so I was cut out of most federal loans. Again this was in 98-02 I'm sure that back in 70's it was very different but this women is in 2008.
vlad at May 22, 2008 8:38 AM
Vlad, my parents made too much money (actually it wasn't their income that killed us, but the fact that they didn't have a house payment) for me to even get a loan. You point to student loans ("make them pay it back") as a solution, but the truth is there is no way to MAKE them pay it back. These people are going to have a lifetime of bad credit - they use their student loans to avoid working and simply don't care what it does to their credit rating. They will never pay it back.
Pirate Jo at May 22, 2008 8:49 AM
bad decisions? the PC way to say fucking up.
Also, if they fail, screw them and make them pay it back? Good luck. Those "bad decision makers" will be just the ones to thumb their nose at the demand. You will have to garnish their pay (if any) and then someone will start wringing their hands and crying boo hoo, we must help them turn their life around. They made an effort before which shows their willingness to try; let's give them another chance to try again.
This mentality of helping out the losers instead of the good decision makers needs some real fixing.
Donna at May 22, 2008 9:11 AM
I've noticed that poor people all have the same attitude towards what they call 'found money'. If they win at the slot machine at a casino, or win the lottery, they think they should blow the money as fast and as stupid and possible, instead of realizing this is their one opportunity to get themselves out of the shithole that is their life.
I've heard that most of the people who have won millions in the lottery wind up with nothing after about 2 years because they have this stupid idea about money.
Chrissy at May 22, 2008 9:11 AM
Got that right, Chrissy! Ever go to the casinos? I've been to both here in CT, but I don't go to gamble, I go for the free music! Anyhoo, lots of people gambling, nobody (except the idiots like me, who go for the music!) smiling.
I mentioned that to BF last time we were there (3 Dog Night for free?? yes!), and he says, "well, yeah, they're gambling their life savings away, stupid assholes. Don't put any of their winnings in their pockets, it goes right back on the table. Then they wonder why they can't pay their rent." Which just supports my theory that you can't lose if you don't play! YMMV
Flynne at May 22, 2008 9:29 AM
I know there were a lot of stories about the pay-outs ending after 20 years and then they have to go back to work. I'd hear one and think am I supposed to feel sorry for you? How fucking stupid is it not to put away for the future when you know the pay-out is only going to last 20 years? If you cash out, likewise, don't touch the damned principal but live off the interest.
That said, I come from poverty and I don't have that attitude. I occassionally play lotto but not more than a few dollars when I have no extraordinary expenses and have them to spare. If I won lotto I'd buy and furnish a house (and not a mansion, a normal middle-class house and normal middle-class furniture, I'd keep what I have that is good) and bank the rest (I take the cash option). If what was left was enough to live off the interest, considering for inflation, then and only then I'd retire.
Donna at May 22, 2008 9:29 AM
3 Dog Night!!! Right on, Flynne. Though I've never been to a casino in my life, it's cool when you can see someone good for free. I'm bummed I never got to see 3 Dog Night before they lost that druggie Chuck, though.
Donna at May 22, 2008 9:33 AM
"bad decisions? the PC way to say fucking up." No it's different degrees. Not giving a shit about grades in high school is a bad decision for some. Robbing a liquor store is fucking up.
"I've heard that most of the people who have won millions in the lottery wind up with nothing after about 2 years because they have this stupid idea about money." I think most of them actually end up in a worse place than when the started. Yeah I see the same thing, hell never mind casinos I see this with scratch tickets. I saw a guy win $500 then buy $500 worth of scratch tickets. I can't get into the thrill of gambling, lost all interest for me once I actually became successful. I look at it this way in every casino I have ever been in, "This was not paid for by people winning money."
"This mentality of helping out the losers instead of the good decision makers needs some real fixing." Based on your theory good decision makers shouldn't need help as they made all the right decisions and are right where then should be. So at what point do you draw the line between shit happens and you dug yourself a hole.
vlad at May 22, 2008 9:39 AM
I look at it this way in every casino I have ever been in, "This was not paid for by people winning money." "
Vegas exists because you lose. Otherwise, it would be three old shacks in the desert.
Amy Alkon at May 22, 2008 10:02 AM
PS I e-mailed the woman to tell her I'd posted this.
Amy Alkon at May 22, 2008 10:20 AM
The gamblers who crack me up are the ones who keep telling you, 'I went to the casino last night and won a hundred dollars!' but somehow the amount they lose never enters the equation. Gambling should be listed in the dictionary as 'voluntary taxation for people who really suck at math.'
Pirate Jo at May 22, 2008 10:53 AM
Amy,
Too funny though not atypical. A few years ago I founded an organization that gives away free, refurbished computers to less fortunate families through my province of B.C.
85% of the people we encounter are absolutely wonderful and doing their best to improve the daily lives of themselves and their families. But there are some, like this woman you wrote about, who have a whole cobweb of screwed up priorities and values. One common theme amongst this smaller group is that they're Permanent Victims and Society Owes Them A Living.
So the whole notion of helping others is something they can't even fathom, as illustrated by the way the woman bit back at your backpack suggestion.
One recent episode with my organization is that we gave a woman a beautiful desktop computer, monitor, etc. She knew ahead of time what we'd be donating to her. Two of my volunteers spent a couple of hours to take the computer from their home to hers on a Saturday afternoon, spending their time, energy, and gas money.
Just four days later this woman sent me an e-mail saying that the computer "wasn't good enough" and she wanted a wireless laptop. So she made arrangements with her mother to buy her a new one. Then she added ... wait for it ... would I please make arrangements with my volunteers to come pick up the computer we had given her.
Like you, I grew increasingly irritable with her and told her off. This was perhaps the first time in her life someone had said "No" to her. She, of course, tried to paint me as horrible and uncaring but I would have none of it and suggested she go to her online dictionary to look up the words "selfish" and "ungrateful".
Robert
Robert W. at May 22, 2008 11:56 AM
This birthday money will be spent appropriately for the income and intellect level into which it is thrust.
I'm sorry, but you just can't sit on the couch all day in Section 8 subsidized housing, smoking crack and staring at a tv set.
You HAVE to have a PS3 or X-box and a copy of 'Grand Theft Auto XX: Rape Rampage' or your kid just won't grow up to fit in to the neighborhood.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at May 22, 2008 11:57 AM
I suppose it's possible this woman is on disability. My Mom-in-Law is, and she gets about 650 a month. Of course she spent 25 years working, two jobs at a time when my late husband was with her, until her body just wouldn't play along anymore. She won't take subsidized housing, though, and would never take much help from us. She tends to live in tiny homes in rural areas, and can pinch a penny till it cries.
This woman sounds pretty unconcerned about money for someone raising her kid on next to nothing. He's 10, and would probably be thrilled to have $50 to spend. My first thought was that there's something (Wii?) she wants, that she can have Jr. buy.
Kimberly at May 22, 2008 1:53 PM
"My first thought was that there's something (Wii?) she wants, that she can have Jr. buy." Never would have thought of that it makes perfect sense, Wii are about $250. I always found it odd that the shitier the area the more highend toys everyone has. I went to a whit castle in a really low end area and 7 of the kids (out of 10) in there has PSP. Apparently I'm not the only one seeing this trend. The more broke ass of my friends has the newest car and the hottest toys, HOW?
vlad at May 22, 2008 2:38 PM
I'm not the same Karen as the writer (thank goodness!) Here's what I don't get: this lady writes for advice, doesn't agree, then instead of just doing whatever she wants, writes back to try to convince you that SHE was right. How stupid! If you have your mind made up already, why ask what someone else thinks?
Karen at May 22, 2008 2:49 PM
My neighbor got his kids some toys yesterday -- a set of rubber balls for the boy, and a little cart to pull for the girl. I'm not against technology, but there's something to be said, too, for having kids use their imagination.
And many people do this, write to me thinking I'll validate the crap they're pulling. I always find it hilarious when they write back to say, essentially, "Well, screw you for your bad advice!"
Amy Alkon at May 22, 2008 3:12 PM
Gambling should be listed in the dictionary as 'voluntary taxation for people who really suck at math.'
Depending on my mood, I think of legalized gambling as either an optimist tax or a stupidity tax.
Rebecca at May 22, 2008 4:49 PM
I think it is shameful that any of you would be chastising and intentionally trying to humiliate the poor and/or impoverished no matter what their circumstances. The picture posted shows just how small some people are.
Kerri at May 22, 2008 9:08 PM
Ah, yet another person who doesn't know the IP address in an e-mail is often or usually the IP address that posts in my MT software. "Kerri," huh?
Whoopsy! Kerri, it turns out is Karen:
received: from karenPC [4.242 (ETC...I won't post the rest)] by page.az.net with ESMTP... The same 4.242...etc IP that posted in my MT software.
Karen's last e-mail -- where I found the IP address, said the following:
What happened that you became disabled? Where's the boy's father and how did you end up having a child with a man who has, apparently, abandoned the child? Or did you cut the dad off from the kid?
My advice, by the way, stands even more, if you are in desperate circumstances. Your kid needs to learn to save. I also would like to think you're teaching him to be ethical, not sneaky and deceptive.
I understand that you were simply looking for a big thumbs up for the way you'd rather take the easy way out in "parenting," but that's not the kind of thing I do. What you might do, instead of being all defensive, and sneaky to boot, is to look at the comments above and maybe see whether you could impart better values (or values, period) to your kid.
Your parents seem to know a thing or two. Maybe listen to them, too.
Amy Alkon at May 22, 2008 10:29 PM
I think Amy's original response and others later that supported the idea that the kid needs to learn the value of money are right on. Not only the value of money, but the value of stewardship of their life. Kids get what is going on in their family at an early age, and they will go how the family goes. They are looking to their parents or parent for a clue to how to live their lives, and they will live what they see.
We started with our kid early with cash gifts to tell him...this is what we do with our money, we spend some of it and we save some of it, so when you have money of your own, you should do the same. We did it for him at first at about the age of 8 or 9, and then later asked him how much he wanted to keep or save and left it up to him. He keeps a small amount of gifts for Christmas and birthdays and puts the rest in savings.
We have also done a lot of community service things with our kid, some because we just want to and some because his schools have required it. One that made the biggest impression was a thing that our church was doing about 5 years ago (my kid was 10 at the time) to deliver Thanksgiving dinner to families in need, and we spent our Thanksgiving day doing that. It was me and our son only (his dad who is my husband does not take part in the church, and he spent the day with his mom), and we went to about 10 households of all kinds. There were very old people living alone, and some large families with all ages of people in them.
At the end of the day, we talked about what the day was like. The words of wisdom from my then 10 year old were enlightening. He said that he was surprised that the really old people who were lonely and couldn't walk around very well were happy to see us and wanted to help us bring a small package into their homes, and the places with lots of kids and people who looked healthy and actually able to help were sitting around acting like we were intruding and they didn't offer to help at all even though we brought more packages and had to make several trips to the car, except for someone who looked like a mom or grandma that thanked us for bringing by some food.
In the past few years, life has just gotten busier for us and our volunteer hours are usually at the regional food bank where we pack boxes of food to be sent to people who need it. And my kid, who never misses the irony in anything, thinks that it is a very sanitized way to help people in need because in his words, "We never make contact with the people in need, we just pack boxes."
We have an only child who was born late in our lives by some standards, and while we are not "well-off", we are comfortable. We have worried that he might take things for granted, but showing him how to save and then letting him go for it on his own, comparing prices when we shop for school clothes, showing him what a car will cost when we buy one WAY too soon, and showing him what it actually costs to live and go to college and what we save and how our savings and investment accounts are doing on a regular basis...he's getting it. He's getting to know that it takes work and savings and a regular effort to make life be something you don't need to live on the edge, and that you can have some measure of control over it. And he's stepping up, getting a job to help pay for his car and insurance.
Kids have to see that they need to take part, and that even though they are being raised by people and some things are a given in their present, that they eventually become the real stewards of their future.
Ang at May 23, 2008 12:04 AM
Great, just great, Ang, and I love that word, "stewardship," and especially, that you've imparted the value of it to your son.
Amy Alkon at May 23, 2008 12:30 AM
Great job, Ang!
Amy, why does LW's story sound fishier every time she invents a new one. Sadly, she doesn't even lie good enough to write fiction for a living. Her son bought a bike for school? What is that? The modern version of I walked 10 miles in the snow to get to school? Uh uh, honey. Doesn't fly in modern America where they insist on bussing the kiddiloos two blocks to school. (Literally, my grandson's day care is not even that and they make him ride the bus to it. OK, he's only four but the day care takes the kids in the older grades, up to 5th too, and they likewise have to ride.)
bad decisions? the PC way to say fucking up." No it's different degrees. Not giving a shit about grades in high school is a bad decision for some. Robbing a liquor store is fucking up. -- No, Vlad, it's fucking up on a lesser basis than the kid robbing the liquor store but it's still fucking up. Why should the kid who doesn't study get college. The one who did is far more deserving of it.
"This mentality of helping out the losers instead of the good decision makers needs some real fixing." Based on your theory good decision makers shouldn't need help as they made all the right decisions and are right where then should be. So at what point do you draw the line between shit happens and you dug yourself a hole. -- Uh, Vlad, I thought we were talking about kids who come from poverty, kids who can't help that their parents are poor. Good decision makers are displaying more of an earnest effort to break the cycle of poverty they were born into and they're the ones who should be helped. As for shit happens, yeah, it does (like being born to shitty parents) but if you dug the hole yourself, it's up to you to either let it bury you or dig yourself out. No one put you there but you.
Donna at May 23, 2008 4:55 AM
The sneaky lady, Karen/"Kerri" writes back:
Here's what I e-mailed back to her in response (edited slightly here for clarity -- wrote her back before coffee):
Amy Alkon at May 23, 2008 6:30 AM
He "needs" a bike? No, he wants a bike. How exactly, Kerri/Karen, would he "need" a bike. He's gonna maybe die without one. Or do you make him fetch all those marvelous groceries you cook? And, no, I'm not buying he needs it to get to school. As I mentioned above. Besides, were you in some freakily weird school district that didn't bus kids, a) isn't it your responsibility (and surely at least either the nurse or the attorney drive) to get him there and b) how'd he get to school before his birthday? Um, I'm sort of wondering why your marvelously-raised, successful adult children don't help you out more? I stick by what I said. Don't try to write fiction for a living. You suck at making up stories.
Donna at May 23, 2008 10:09 AM
HOW DARE YOU!!!! I have know Karen for at least 30 years. Everything she has said is true. She has worked all of her life to support herself and hers until illness forced her into poverty. SHAME ON YOU! For you to attack her the way you have without knowing anything about her or her circumstance is disgraceful! Maybe she did pick the wrong man, but many, many woman are in that boat. What exactly are your qualifications for giving others advice anyway? Any one that has to post a picture of a broken down truck as "home"
as an insult instead the compassion you should be exuding does not impress me! I can only hope you might end up in her situation some day. YOU ARE A LOON!!!!
Sandi at May 23, 2008 11:55 AM
Sandi:
Karen ASKED for advice. Supposedly from an advice columnist she has read and/or heard of. Unfortunately, when she was given advice, instead of either accepting it or at least ignoring it, she chose to make herself look foolish by defending her decision.
Why ask for advice if you know the decision you've made is the right one?
Instead of behaving like a rational adult, saying to Amy "Gee, well, I disagree, but thank you for your time", instead she goes on a four email debate about how she's right, sounding more self-righteous with each one. If she is so certain she's right, why bother to write to an advice columnist?!
Sorry, but Karen started the tiff with her complete lack of adult behavior. If there's one thing I've learned from this website, it's don't get Amy Alkon angry. And you posting indignantly isn't going to help any at all.
cornerdemon at May 23, 2008 12:14 PM
Well said, cornerdemon.
Now, perhaps in addition to having bad values about money, and being sneaky, Karen also has bad judgement in general, and asked me advice for no reason in particular, simply at random. That would be another point against her.
Personally, I don't just ask anyone for advice, only people whose judgment and values I respect. That's because I'm rational and sensible.
The fact that you've known Karen for many years doesn't make her values better and it doesn't make her less sneaky.
I can "pick the wrong man" because I don't want children. When you decide to extrude other human beings (or have a chance of doing it accidentally) you have to take some care in who you do this with. More people should try that sort of thinking.
And Sandy, are you a parent? If so, what but a working set of ovaries qualifies you or qualified you to become one? Because if you think Karen has good values, and you had children, too, I'm worried.
Amy Alkon at May 23, 2008 12:19 PM
I agree that Karen was trying to explain her position but it was Amy who began suggesting she was not a good parent and couldn't possibly be living on $650.00 a month. I don't really care about the original Q & A. It was all the uncalled for remarks afterwards!
Sandi at May 23, 2008 12:31 PM
Don't worry your little head about me. You are
kind of selfrighteous don't you think??!!
Sandi at May 23, 2008 12:35 PM
I can't judge overall whether she's a good or bad parent, but from the limited details I've seen and experienced, the picture isn't too great.
She's sneaky, and has bad values about money, and is immature about admitting what's best for her child (her self-image, even when she's anonymous) is more important. I'm guessing she was never looking for advice, she was looking to tell her parents they were wrong.
Additionally, she plopped out a child with a man who's gone from that kid's life. I don't care if some single girl wants to run off to Paris tomorrow; once you have a child, you'd better do damn well everything you can to give that kid a happy, two-parent home.
Furthermore, anybody who has a child and who doesn't have disability insurance is a bad parent. You have to take every precaution that your child doesn't end up living in poverty. Don't like the costs and responsibilities? Have sex with a condom.
Sandi, why are you defending this woman? Because you've known her for a long time? Do you think the qualities I've noted above are admirable or signs of good parenting?
Regarding this: "I agree that Karen was trying to explain her position" -- but she wasn't. She came here all sneaky and pretended to be somebody else.
And how do you define "self-righteous"? Sure, when it comes to kids, and criticizing their values-challenged, indulgent "parents," who take the easy way out, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura. Why is that a bad thing?
And what about what I said about values about money, teaching kids accountability, and the like seemed off-base to you?
Amy Alkon at May 23, 2008 12:40 PM
I don't disagree that kids should be taught accountability and money values. But I know Karen and she is a very good parent and is proud I think of being able to feed and house her and her son on $650.00 a month. This is no small task. She is not in this position of her own doing. So I resent you jumping to the conclusion
that she is sneaky and a liar. Why should she not be able to explain her reasoning without being attacked and ridiculed??!!
Sandi at May 23, 2008 1:05 PM
Sandi, she didn't come here to "explain her reasoning." She came here only once and posted pretending to be somebody else. Would you call this honest and forthright behavior or sneaky behavior?
Furthermore, I don't know this because she admitted it (she didn't -- accountability doesn't seem to be her strong suit, in my experience); I know this because I'm smarter than she is, and thought to check the IP address in the comment against the IP address in her e-mail that moment I saw that comment from "Kerri."
Nobody should be "proud" to feed and house a kid on $650 a month. They should have gotten disability insurance, especially if the dad's out of the picture. That would take putting money aside for that purpose -- the value I was suggesting her son needed to learn, instead of being given the $250 which he did not earn to spend in full.
My friend Cathy Seipp died of cancer, and because she had a child, she had disability insurance -- expensive, too, through Lloyd's of London -- which meant bills were paid while she was dying and couldn't work. This is what a responsible parent does, even if it means they, like Cathy, drive a very old Volvo and almost never buy new clothes.
You have a kid, it's your responsibility to provide for them -- and being proud that you can live on $650 (which surely means she's proud to have other taxpayers picking up the tab) doesn't cut it.
Amy Alkon at May 23, 2008 1:15 PM
I think that it doesn't matter if you make $650 a month or some ungodly amount: Gifts are meant to be given to the recipient so that they can use them and use them well. Letting a child spend that much money on whatever indulgences he desires on top of receiving other gifts isn't making the best use of that money. At that point, he has enough things: It's time to focus on a non-material aspect (saving) that will actually mean something to him one, five, or even ten years down the road.
It's just silly, really. Did the kid put up a fuss about making a savings account? No? Then the only person holding back here is mom, and for no real good reason.
Jean Moczy at May 23, 2008 9:53 PM
Chrissy -
I've noticed that poor people all have the same attitude towards what they call 'found money'.
Fuck you. That is about the foulest, most moronic thing that I've seen said about anyone who isn't gay, this week.
The vast majority of poor people couldn't be further from that characterization 'twer it the moon.
DuWayne at May 23, 2008 10:53 PM
"Fuck you. That is about the foulest, most moronic thing that I've seen said about anyone who isn't gay, this week."
Oh please DuWayne. I think Chrissy is right. Poor people are not generally particularly interesting intellectually or otherwise (morally), and I say this as someone who finds the coddled middle class particularly annoying. I had a poor childhood (we used to only shop at goodwill) while my parents built a very lucrative business from the ground up (we then lived in a $700,000 home). I remember being poor and having to watch that nobody I knew stole my shit.
I'll take my upper middle class grievences any day.
And I still think gays shouldnt have biological kids.
PurplePen at May 24, 2008 12:40 AM
It really is too bad that we cans have some large scale aplication of bith control medication put in the water supply to prevent your average moron from having kids to begin with
lujlp at May 24, 2008 2:27 AM
Yup, I'm a raging class-ist. FYI, my parents were poor too. I guess I should have said 'some' or 'a few' 'financially challenged' people have a stupid attitude towards 'found money'. I've now used up my quote quota for the day.
I find most people very annoying, no matter what their income bracket, and sometimes I'm quite annoyed with myself.
Chrissy at May 24, 2008 8:39 AM
PP -
So you don't have a problem with someone saying that your parents and everyone like them are obviously irresponsible with money. That's fucking beautiful. Meanwhile you parents actually managed to build a very sound business while being irresponsible with money. I have managed to build a reasonable business while slowly pulling myself out of crushing poverty, too bad I'm just an ignorant poor person incapable of managing money.
When people make hateful generalizations like Chrissy did, it makes me a little irritable. Are there many poor people who fit her descriptive? Sure, but the vast majority of the poor (namely the working poor) don't fit that descriptive at all. For most of the poor people I know, "found" money is what makes up their limited savings.
Easy enough to make generalizations about the idiot poor who buy lottery tickets. People without two nickels to rub together really should be spending their limited resources on something more reasonable than a lottery ticket. The mentality is already warped before they manage to win the lotto.
Out of curiosity, were your parents morally and intellectually boring?
As for the gays having kids; Does this mean you support licensing or other requirements before people have kids? Because as it stands you don't get to tell others whether they can reproduce or not.
DuWayne at May 24, 2008 8:52 AM
I think PP was being sarcastic?
A lot of people have no concept of how to handle money, I just based my comment on what I've seen quite a few times. Didn't mean to offend everybody!
My poor parents were intellectually dull, my dad was pretty good with money (we had a roof over our heads and food), my mom had no concept of fiscal responsibility (let's buy a crystal bowl at Tiffany's instead of food!)and when I win at the casino, I keep the money.
Chrissy at May 24, 2008 9:18 AM
> And I still think gays shouldnt
> have biological kids.
Angel Purple, on this point we can be confident.
Crid at May 24, 2008 11:30 AM
But as long as we're on the topic, consider this morning's post from Kaus (no direct link available):
L.A. Times--"Californians narrowly reject gay marriage ..." By, er, 19 points (54-35% among registered voters). ... Patterico reviews the LAT's embarrassing history of pretending polls are close when the paper wants them to be close. Ask Gov. Davis. . .
Crid at May 24, 2008 12:17 PM
I hate when Mickey doesn't put in permalinks. As bloggers-as-traffic-whores go, he's a near-total failure.
And of course Patterico is on it. I just love the guy.
http://patterico.com/2008/05/23/la-times-gay-marriage-opposed-by-a-very-narrow-19-point-margin/
Amy Alkon at May 24, 2008 1:10 PM
"So you don't have a problem with someone saying that your parents and everyone like them are obviously irresponsible with money."
I think most people are irresponsible with money, including my parents (and especially mothers). Now they're struggling. The only ones that seem to have some sense about it are the wealthy.
"Out of curiosity, were your parents morally and intellectually boring?"
My mother yes and my stepfather no.
Poor people arent snobby, they're friendly and welcoming. I'm not saying your worth is equal to your bank account but poor people dont steal your large collection of books you know what I'm saying?
"As for the gays having kids; Does this mean you support licensing or other requirements before people have kids? Because as it stands you don't get to tell others whether they can reproduce or not."
Why do you jump to conclusions like that? Can't I easily be against gay biological parenting without goverment intervention? I just think society shouldn't approve of it. You know homos might be diffrent then the straights but they are still ruled by natures whims (that is men are men and women are women).
PurplePen at May 24, 2008 3:35 PM
Why don't Karen's older kids help support their mother? (The NYT had a story about gov't payments for people who take their kid to the Dr. ,go to school, etc., and the example used by the reporter was a woman with 5 kids--two of whom had MAs. So, couldn't they help out Mom, rather than the citizenry?)
There's a whole industry built around lottery winners who spend their yearly allotment, and then need to borrow to make it through the remaining 10 months. Fascinating read: Edward Ugel's Money for Nothing.
http://www.edwardugel.com/Reviews.html
KateCoe at May 25, 2008 9:56 PM
I think what the majority of people are forgetting here is that for many, many years I worked one and sometimes 2 jobs and paid taxes. I owned my own home and paid taxes. I paid for all of my and my children's food, clothing, medical expenses, dental expenses, assisted with college tuition and books, etc. and paid more taxes, and only just recently have received assistance of any kind from the government. Whether you agree or not, the USA has determined that it temporarily helps families who meet their strict criteria for assistance and who are not working through no fault of their own. So being that I, for many, many years was the dutiful working taxpaying citizen who gave my hard earned money to the government to benefit and squander on our country anyway they wished, I do not in the least feel guilty about accepting the minute amount of help they are providing me. I have already paid my way many times over. I many, many years ago worked my way through college.
In addition, I do not know what planet you people live on, but in my rural town of appoximately 3,000 people, grade school children still ride their bikes to school, to baseball and football practice and games, to the swimming pool, to friends houses etc. With gas at $4.00 per gallon it would hardly seem feasible to be driving a 10 year old everywhere when he is perfectly capable of biking with his freinds there. So, in my opinion, he needs a bike. As for his sisters hauling him everywhere, one lives 3 hours away and the other 6 hours away. Now that makes sense doesn't it to have them waste their time and gas to haul him. As for him learning to save money, he currently has about $2,000 in savings bonds, $1,800 from stock he owns that doubled (the original investment was left when it doubled and we pulled out the $1,800 and placed it in a savings account, which, by the way, was my idea to have his grandfather buy instead of a nonmoney gift so he could learn about investing and the possible return he could get on his money.
The nature of my disability is of none of your concern. The only thing that matters is that my doctors will not yet release me for work period.
Any details about my exhusband is also none of your business. He sends his child support, which is more than most men do.
No, I did not send my 10 year old out to mow lawns to earn money for his guitar. I think that sending a 10 year old to operate a lawn mower may well have catastrophic results. Is that what your parents made you do at 10 when you wanted the Barbie House? Were you out mowing lawns when you were 10? I think not.
The other thing that you don't get is that we are not in "dire circumstances." Although it may be hard to believe, when faced with adversity it's amazing how much you can actually get from so little.
Finally, you say that you are not impressed with me? Well, the feeling is mutual-- not only by me but it would seem by many, many others. The last I checked on Amazon.com a couple of days ago, a person could pick up a copy your book for 16 cents used. So, accordingly, I will consider the couple paragraphs of advice I received from you to worth far less than that.
Karen at May 26, 2008 11:13 AM
"The only ones that seem to have some sense about it are the wealthy."
The best money advice I've ever seen was one sentence uttered by some old guy (cue old guy voice): "If you want to be rich, look at what the poor people do... and then... don't do that."
Radwaste at May 26, 2008 11:15 AM
The last I checked on Amazon.com a couple of days ago, a person could pick up a copy your book for 16 cents used.
So, you are supporting my suggestion that you have very bad judgement? After all, you asked me for advice. You ask people you think are idiots with bad judgement?
I'm guessing that you read my column in a paper in Arizona. The book was a jokey thing I wrote with my former partners in the early 90s and if you'd read it, you'd see that it includes pictures of the three of us in goatees and evening dresses. It's 16 cents because it's out of print, and one of my partners is dead.
But you just wanted to say "nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah," right? Come on, come clean just this once. It'll be good practice for you in becoming ethical and maybe raising a child who doesn't grow up to carjack the rest of us. Or at least live on the dole.
Any person who is a parent has a responsibility to have a safety net for their child. Disability insurance, for example.
I mowed the lawn for years as did many people reading here, I'm sure. You could have the kid do chores to learn that money comes from work. Again, teach the kid some values. Even if yours are threadbare.
I don't care what you paid for. Nobody owes you a living. And by getting disability, you wouldn't be on the taxpayer dole.
Your business became my business when you came to me and asked me for advice, then began making all these claims about yourself.
As for the quality of my advice, I send myself to psychology and evolutionary psych conferences on my own dime, like the one I just got back from in New Hampshire. I put a tremendous amount of thought and work into my column -- which is probably why I'm a finalist for "Journalist of the Year" from LA Press Club, and have come in first for "signed commentary" the quality of my work and writing two out of the past three years. But, I don't do it for the awards. I do it because I have integrity, and feel a need to put out the best thinking and data I possibly can in my column.
In short, you're once again playing dirty pool, and making excuses instead of showing any accountability. Not a surprise. Please send your child to some other family, at least in the afternoons, where he might pick up some values.
Amy Alkon at May 26, 2008 11:26 AM
One more thing: You say you're "not in dire circumstances."
It's wonderful you're so comfortable apparently living on the dole.
For me, having other people pay for me would be pretty damn dire and shameful.
And how's that "absent father" working for your kid?
Amy Alkon at May 26, 2008 11:27 AM
Hey, Karen - where's my "Thank You"? I mean, you're living on my money. I suspect that your son, encouraged to spend everything he has, will also, although I will be pleased to see otherwise.
Life goes on. You don't get the right to be indignant when you're not making your own way when people point that out, however mad you might be that the rest of the world might not think you're the Mom of The Year. Gee, you haven't even figured out that the things you say aren't Amy's business are material to your predicament. I hope you find better success, even though this has mutated far beyond the simple, "No, even a gift to a child should be thoughtfully managed" it started out to be. I suggest that you think about why an evidence-biased person who studies people constantly would object to anything you say - and that's not just Amy.
BTW - I'm looking for your book(s) as soon as I can. What's it - what are they - called?
Radwaste at May 26, 2008 11:30 AM
Well, that's where you and I differ. I see that the minute amount I'm actually being provided as a small portion of MY money i.e., the thousands upon thousands of dollars that I've already donated to taxes. I don't actually get how you think it's just your money. Like I said before the USA determines the guidelines, not you. If you disagree, perhaps you should lobby, write your state representative, or congressman. Although I believe not too long ago they completely overhauled the Welfare system and those who can work must.
You are right about one thing, life goes on. Things change, circumstances change, and everything eventually works out. So I am sure we will be back up and good tax paying citizens before long.
As long as the child's father sends his child support, he works out just fine for us. I don't happen to believe that fathers, absent or not and even those who "appear" to be good fathers are always a benefit to the children. He sees his father when he wants to.
I have the right to be indignant whenever I want for whatever reason I choose.
Also, if you read my last response, you would see that my child does not spend everything he has, and how is it that you know that he doesn't have assigned chores? Also, if history is a prediction of the future, I find it highly doubtful considering the success of my other children, that this child will be either a carjacker, or live on the "dole," or abuse drugs or alcohol, etc. So you can relax about my child carjacking your car.
Also, I did have an approximate $50,000 safety net which recently ran out.
The only reason this has mutated further, is Amy's unfounded personal attacks.
Karen at May 26, 2008 1:20 PM
An "unfounded personal attack" would be a baseless attack that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. The subject at hand, which you brought to my hand without me asking for it, is your values system. If you don't want it questioned, keep it to yourself.
Amy Alkon at May 26, 2008 1:47 PM
"I see that the minute amount I'm actually being provided as a small portion of MY money i.e., the thousands upon thousands of dollars that I've already donated to taxes. I don't actually get how you think it's just your money."
Wow. Go back to the school and get your money back - you have been cheated of an education. Not only did I not say that - you assumed it yourself - taxes are pooled. Therefore, any sum you get is only fractionally yours. That means that the output of other people is what is supporting you now, just as your money went to a million different places. I am pleased to see you have contributed, and hope that you will contribute once again after you are off the dole.
I'd really love to see what "the right to be indignant" actually means in this case. You're entitled to get mad? At what?
Nobody owes you a living, you have to eat what is set before you after you pick the restaurant, so to speak, few people think it's a good idea to let any youngster blow his or her cash at one time and that's about it. You're clearly not entitled to satisfaction from any of us here, nor are you entitled to live forever off the work of others, etc. - although it looks like you are trying to justify that by citing American benefits laws, though very generally.
I hope you can rise above all of this, and I'll look for word that you have. Meanwhile, read back and see where this could have been avoided. Note as you do that Amy has held such opinions as you have heard for at least the two years I've been following her articles. They are not changed just for you.
Radwaste at May 26, 2008 3:07 PM
I think this is the most ridiculous thing I've read. Making a child put half their money received from birthday gifts in a bank account? At age 10? Cmon people. My kids are teenagers. Both girls 17 and 15. They too receive money from Grandparents and relatives on Birthdays and holidays. We live 1800+ miles from our families so they (relatives) feel money is easier so they can get what they need or want. I let them spend the entire thing since they were small children. They are kids! Don't you think they have enough pressure by us "adults"? When is the "right" time to indulge your children if not on their birthday? Now, my kids both have jobs, play every sport possible in school, get decent grades, have never been in trouble with the law, and are respectful young adults. They save money out of their paychecks. They also have money in savings from 4-H projects showing livestock. This whole entire message has been blown out of proportion. I think the subject here was a kid and his birthday money. Now it's turned into a personal attack because the "family" is having hard times? Who are you to judge anyone? I hope you never get sick, lose your job, experience a natural disaster, or make a fucking mistake in your self-rightous world. God forbid YOU should ever need help! I too am living at the poverty level in the heart of America. The only difference, I'm receiving NO assistance. I own my own home, work 2 fulltime jobs, have been married for 18 years to the same asshole who I birthed my children with. My daughter is about to go to college on federal grants. Shame on us for allowing her to accept the monies that are available to her from the Govt "dole". As far as having disability insurance, it is something we've never been able to afford. Please keep us in your prayers, along with the rest of middle America who can't afford disability insurance and are living paycheck to paycheck, that we never get sick and have to depend on YOUR hard earned tax money. I work, I pay my taxes, but... it seems to be all YOURS! I think most of middle America would say help the needy when they need help, not fend for yourselves, too bad for you and shame on you. Remember that middle America pays a huge amount of taxes.
When kids are small, let them be kids. Soon enough they'll discover the harsh reality of adulthood.
Kacy Irons at May 26, 2008 3:18 PM
Making a child put half their money received from birthday gifts in a bank account? At age 10?
It's called teaching a kid values. I'm what I call a "personal responsibilitarian." I turned out that way through stuff I read, but also because I was raised that way.
If you can't afford the costs of protecting your children -- like disability insurance -- how can you feel right having children? And more than one child, to boot.
I don't have children, in part, because I'm not willing to make the sacrifices that entails. A pity that doesn't seem to stop so many other people.
You, too, are living at the poverty level? Jeez. I didn't get a dog, despite wanting one desperately my entire life, until I could be sure I could afford any possible cost for her care (around age 35). And she's just a PET.
As for this: "I hope you never get sick, lose your job, experience a natural disaster, or make a fucking mistake in your self-rightous world" -- if I had kids, I'd live a lot differently. As it is, if I take a fall, I'm the only one who suffers. (My dog's really cute -- lots of people would be clamoring to snap her up.)
Furthermore, if you're living at the poverty line, how can you take care of your kids' health in any reasonable way? Do you just hope the rest of us taxpayers will come through?
As for birthing children with an asshole, did you not look at who he was before you reproduced with him? I mean, people generally don't change considerably. Nathaniel Branden says that people will tell you who they are and what they're about if you're willing to look. Of course, many women are so desperate to latch onto a husband that they'll cover their eyes and marry just about anything -- which is no big deal if it's only your life you're messing up. Did you just cross your fingers things would work out okay and pump out children with him?
Like Karen, you don't seem to be a fountain of good judgement.
Amy Alkon at May 26, 2008 3:52 PM
Good gravy. What a fine way to show, not just teach, but show a youngster they are "entitled" to things.
Where do you think you learned how to live "paycheck to paycheck"?
It damned sure wasn't from anyone with sense about money!
There is nothing "noble" about being poor. I'm proud of you for working hard, but you know that's not enough. You also have to be smart. Start early with the smarts - and teach the kids how to be smart, first, and then you don't get stuck working multiple jobs, doing what other people tell you.
Here's a huge hint, though it's off-topic: nobody has ever made a fortune earning an hourly wage. Say that out loud. It might be your first step out of bondage.
Radwaste at May 26, 2008 5:23 PM
Here's an excellent article that everyone should check out, whether you have kids or not:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/RaiseKids/WillOurKidsBeDumbAndBroke.aspx
Flynne at May 27, 2008 12:24 PM
Thanks, Flynne -- good stuff. You inspired me to look for more. Here's something:
http://money-finance.kaboose.com/money/birthday-holiday-windfalls.html
Well, wouldn'tcha know it...they give pretty much the same baaaaad advice I do.
More failing wisdom at the link.
Amy Alkon at May 27, 2008 7:33 PM
Just kidding. Of course, it's excellent advice, from a personal finance columnist named Scott Reeves.
Amy Alkon at May 27, 2008 7:36 PM
Leave a comment