Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Which is precisely my point, he's in a mess of his own choosing, he's had a decade to figure it out and hasn't.
There's something that doesn't add up here. There are two of them, between them they can't afford a beater in 10 years? It's only got to make it 30 miles a day. They can't afford to move? In 10 years? If two of them are working why not? If you're straining to pay property tax, living expenses and maintenance on a house you own so badly you walk 21 miles a day to a $10.55/hr job, sell it, because sooner or later it's going to cost you more keeping it than selling it (if it's repo'd for tax arrears you get cents on the dollar at best), that will release cash flow. If they both don't work why not? While I read he likes living where he does and will not move, well that's a choice, and how much can you enjoy where you live when you're only there for 2 hours of sleep a night (plus naps on the bus) and catching up on sleep at the weekends?
He doesn't have to car shop, if it's purely for transport they can figure out a budget and his girlfriend can shop for it (not ideal, but it's an option), doesn't have time to look for an apartment, one of them has at least as much time as any other working person and they seem to manage.
Hell in 10 years he's probably bought two $5000 cars just in excess footwear from his walking the distances he does, and would it matter if he spends $50 on a bike that's stolen every 6 months, compared to $100 every 6 months on boots that he wears out?
Most of what you're saying is just excuses for why this person chooses to walk that distance, and it's clearly a choice. Sure call me bitter and jaded if you want to, but to be honest given the way he's managed his life for the past 10 years, without serious life changes he's always going to be in that or a similar situation. His problem isn't money, its his choices. If being bitter and jaded means that I'm looking at the problem and trying to fix it, rather than throwing things in his general direction, then perhaps it would be better if more people were bitter and jaded.
Animal Farm compares everyone to animals. That's the whole idea of the book.
uh huh. and comparing black people to animals brings instant shrieks of 'racism!' from the left. except when a leftist does it.
Quote:
It's a little odd that you immediately thought of him being black when I brought up Animal Farm though.
that certainly would be odd, since you weren't the one who brought up animal farm. cobbie did.
are you cobbie's sockpuppet?
Quote:
[Till then, no one was even talking about his race. And neither was I. When I brought up Boxer, I had the guy's mindset and lifestyle in mind. His skin color was the furthest thing from my mind.
you've gotta be kidding. indentured servant and his pals have been ululating about racism and slavery on this entire thread
Last edited by uggabugga; 02-06-2015 at 11:18 AM..
But in regards to the OP, what I thought when I initially read that story was how selfish people at his job were. Why didn't they take up a collection to help him get a new car? It is odd to me as I am just not the kind of person not to help people out. If you took up a collection and offered him a beat up hooptie that would get him to work, I bet he would have taken it.
That said, I felt the story is actually one that is universal regarding poor people and poor black people in this country. Regardless of what people think, poor people go to great strides to work, a large amount of them don't have much access to reliable transportation. They spend a great amount of hours travelling to and from work. Their kids spend 10+ hours per day in childcare. They make a very small amount of money.
Then people, like many here on CD b ! tch about them and how they don't "work hard" or aren't dedicated to improving their lives. If you have to work and travel 3+ hours per day, how are you not "working hard" and how much time do you think they have to go back to school or to try to get out of that situation. This man is a representation of America's working poor IMO and they are a very large segment of the population.
You strike me as the illiterate type, so you're probably not familiarly with Boxer the cart-horse, but that's what we're dealing with here. This guy's Boxer if there ever was one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohhwanderlust
???
Animal Farm compares everyone to animals. That's the whole idea of the book.
Till then, no one was even talking about his race. And neither was I. When I brought up Boxer, I had the guy's mindset and lifestyle in mind. His skin color was the furthest thing from my mind.
sockpuppet detected.
does this forum allow posting under multiple names, aka sockpuppets?
Yea, I know... it's a great story of dedication. That's not how I took it when I heard the story. Let's get to work:
1) Walking 21 miles to work in America is not "awesome." It's called being poor. It's called being poor in a country that hates the idea of being poor more than the desire to fix poverty. This man is not the only lower-income person that endures a marathon commute to earn a living. There are poor folks in major cities working three jobs on several different bus routes with no time to eat, sleep, or watch their kids. He is not walking because he is a special "hard worker;" he's walking because he is poor.
2) Why is no one criticizing Detroit? The solution is just to "get him a car." Detroit screwed its low-income workers 60 years ago when it told public transportation advocates to go to hell. How does a Metro area with over 5 million residents have such terrible transportation options ?!?!
3) How will a man making $10.50 / hour afford the maintenance, insurance, gas, and other miscellaneous expenses with car ownership on a 42 mile daily commute? Did it ever occur to people that owning a car is just not a sound financial solution for lower income citizens?
4) No, more people don't need to "be like him." The dedication is certainly admirable, but there is nothing appealing about putting "work ethic" on a pedestal when meritocracy is an American myth. No amount of hard work is going to make his life change for the better. He had been living that way for ten years, and only the compassion of others will make his situation marginally better in the short-term. His employer and everyone else praising him today never gave a damn.
Here is a concept, if a man is willing to walk 21 miles to work, how about keep walking to a place that is not 21 miles away. You know other states and towns arent as BAD as Detroit. That is the good thing about america you can leave a STATE!!! or even a bad city.
I think the entire debate and the wage battle is for the profits. Wages are stagnant yet productivity and profits are up. The gains are going somewhere and it looks like they're trickling up. So yes I'm assuming the wage debate is for the employer or big company to take a cut. Not just pass the buck down to the consumer but learn to deal with less just as we've all had to do since wages remained flat for thirty years.
I also don't pity a business if they can't afford their labor costs. Its a variable of any business expense so if ya can't afford to keep up then you shouldn't be in business.
That isn't the way business works though. Furthermore, if I own a business, and I achieve a significant amount of wealth, the object is to to keep that wealth, or further increase it. Why should I as a business owner have to make do with less? The object is to get to the point, where you don't have to go backwards. Again, a business is not a charity.
That isn't the way business works though. Furthermore, if I own a business, and I achieve a significant amount of wealth, the object is to to keep that wealth, or further increase it. Why should I as a business owner have to make do with less? The object is to get to the point, where you don't have to go backwards. Again, a business is not a charity.
Right, but there in lies the struggle. A worker is likewise not going to take the increased productivity, rising prices and stagnant wages lightly.
You guys like to point out the owners logic as simply rational self interest and attribute any decision no matter how detrimental to society or the work staff or the community that relies on the work as fundamentally right because he simply owns. Anything that blocks that right by the owner then it's considered tampering with liberty to y'all because you guys equate the owners right as almost the epitome of liberty/freedom. It's as though its a natural law to y'all.
I'm assuming you're libertarian or a conservative that subscribes to the Chicago or Austrian school of thinking.
When workers demand higher wages or petition the government for higher wages it's manipulating the market. They're seen as lazy rabble rousers who want more for less.
I mean the conventional way economics is discussed in this country is too conveniently on the side of business.
Right, but there in lies the struggle. A worker is likewise not going to take the increased productivity, rising prices and stagnant wages lightly.
You guys like to point out the owners logic as simply rational self interest and attribute any decision no matter how detrimental to society or the work staff or the community that relies on the work as fundamentally right because he simply owns. Anything that blocks that right by the owner then it's considered tampering with liberty to y'all because you guys equate the owners right as almost the epitome of liberty/freedom. It's as though its a natural law to y'all.
I'm assuming you're libertarian or a conservative that subscribes to the Chicago or Austrian school of thinking.
When workers demand higher wages or petition the government for higher wages it's manipulating the market. They're seen as lazy rabble rousers who want more for less.
I mean the conventional way economics is discussed in this country is too conveniently on the side of business.
Not really. It might be on the side of the large corporations who grease the palms of the politicians on both sides of the aisle to rig the game in their favor, i.e. corporate cronyism (which is not the same as capitalism BTW), but not for the small and mid sized busineses. And if we're talking about a mandatory federal minimum wage in a country as large and with the numerous micro-economies as ours it cannot work! Each region, each state has a different standard of living. Redistribution of wealth does not solve anything, and in fact is counter-productive and provides less incentive for anyone to better themselves.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
