US government Shutdown

[Simon_Jester]

The most disgusting thing about this is not the politics, it's all the federal employees affected got three weeks additional paid holiday on top of their already extremely generous (relative to private sector) paid holiday allowance, yet still have the gall to pretend they're being screwed.

(1)

It's only paid holiday if Congress decides to pay it after the fact. They can, they hopefully will, but they might not. You can't know unless you are privy to the internal discussions of the legislature. It's not like Congress is under any contractual obligation to provide back pay for a shutdown, after all.

(2)

Also, it's an indefinite period of not getting paid, not "take two weeks off while we settle this, and report back to work on Monday, October __, we'll pay you back."

If the House had chosen to be more determined, or more intransigent, depending on your point of view, the shutdown could easily have lasted three or four weeks instead of two. As it is, the thing was only ended so quickly because of the debt ceiling vote, which forced Congress to take some kind of action.

Had we tipped over the line of the debt ceiling (and people were seriously concerned about that as little as 24 hours before the limit), then the federal government's accounts could easily have wound up in so much disarray that making the back payments in a timely fashion would become impossible.

(3)

For people working for government contractors (of which there are many, because EFFICIENT PRIVATE SECTOR produces BETTER RESULTS for TAXPAYER MONEY, as we all know)... I heard it cited that 86% of contractor firms in the Washington, D.C. area have already laid off at least some employees- because they didn't collect their fees for services rendered during the shutdown, being as how the services weren't rendered and there was no one in the office to write them the check anyway.

That constitutes a large secondary pool of people directly impacted by the shutdown, and a pool which would probably have become larger if the US government were more fully administrated by people with your mindset- because more of the workers would be contractors instead of HORRIBLY OVERPAID government employees.

And now they'd mostly be laid off and running around in circles playing musical chairs with their job openings. Big improvement. But hey, it's better than having non-existent welfare-queen federal employees who in my imaginary dream world are collecting six figure paychecks for easy, mediocre work that in the corporate world you'd be lucky to make the median income for!

Similarly, I think employers should be able to sue striking contract workers for lost profits.

Does the employee's contract include a promise that the employer will make money?

But that is very different to saying that being paid 2.5 weeks late and not having to work in that time is "vile". It's a mild inconvenience that anyone with the slightest amount of sense could nonetheless have easily avoided entirely by not living hand-to-mouth. I suspect most people did just that, but I have little sympathy for those who rather spent their money on going to bars or an iphone subscription (neither of which I spend money on).

Question: Do you think all Americans are systematically lazy and stupid for not having large reserves of savings to handle "inexplicably don't get paid for weeks at a time?" In a time when the expenses required to keep a family educated and healthy are rising faster than inflation? Because frankly, most Americans do not have such savings, with the possible exception of retirement savings that they will need to not die at the age of 65-70.

I mean hell, "just in time delivery" is increasingly the norm in the corporate sector; businesses want to assume that everything will flow smoothly and with minimal disruptions due to screwups, broken systems, and willful incompetence or corruption on the part of their suppliers.

Why can't labor make the same assumptions?

[energiewende]

I don't basically disagree that what the government did was bad: it promised certain pay contractually and reneged on that promise. It's right that back pay is made and probably right that additional pay is made, as compensation. Similarly, I think employers should be able to sue striking contract workers for lost profits. But that is very different to saying that being paid 2.5 weeks late and not having to work in that time is "vile". It's a mild inconvenience that anyone with the slightest amount of sense could nonetheless have easily avoided entirely by not living hand-to-mouth. I suspect most people did just that, but I have little sympathy for those who rather spent their money on going to bars or an iphone subscription (neither of which I spend money on).

Ah, so now I get it. If they'd just been like you it could all be avoided. Sounds a lot like "I got mine, screw you." to me.

I'd agree if I were some rich guy living on inheritances or something. I work a low-to-medium pay job and have savings due to not spending every penny I earn. It has taken me about 10 months to build up enough money that, if I really needed to cut back, I could probably live for about a year without pay. People who are not chronically underemployed who miss bills because their check is 2 weeks late are simply living irresponsibly and inflicting harm on themselves. Note, they get the benefit elsewhere - in luxury consumption goods that I forgo - so I don't see that they are worse off than me necessarily. They paid their money, they took their choice.

Good thing that was not what I claimed. My claim was that a desire to silence the wailing of peasants was vile.

The problem is their wails are roughly as convincing as this.

And that's my basic contention with such childishness. The idea that not living hand-to-mouth would be a personal decision for most people is a fable plausible only to someone who never needed to work for his own living.

Not living hand to mouth is a decision for practically everyone. Here is someone who lives on $7k/year in the US and has private health insurance. You may not like living in a smaller house, a worse area, having fewer luxuries, or whatever else, but you chose the trade-offs. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

Does the employee's contract include a promise that the employer will make money?

No, but they do include a promise to work a certain number of hours. You raise a good point though: if the company were unprofitable would the employee owe nominal wage value of the hours, or could they argue that they did not cause any harm to the company because their going in to work would only have contributed to further losses? I suspect the former but I am open to arguments.

Question: Do you think all Americans are systematically lazy and stupid for not having large reserves of savings

Yes. Have you ever been to China? I am not talking about the bottom of their society, who are still working the fields, but compared to even a below average American the guys I'm talking about are poor. And yet you'd be amazed how many people with a single tatty sofa in their family room have a bank account that's going to send their kid to the US, Australia, or UK for university. US is an instant-satisfaction, low-saving, high-debt culture. It's in some ways desireable compared to the alternative, but it's not the only way, and in other ways it's very much not desireable compared to the alternative.

[Simon_Jester]

I'd agree if I were some rich guy living on inheritances or something. I work a low-to-medium pay job and have savings due to not spending every penny I earn. It has taken me about 6 months to build up enough money that, if I really needed to cut back, I could probably live for about a year without pay. People who are not chronically underemployed who miss bills because their check is 2 weeks late are simply living irresponsibly and inflicting harm on themselves. Note, they get the benefit elsewhere - in luxury consumption goods that I forgo - so I don't see that they are worse off than me necessarily. They paid their money, they took their choice.

Question:

Do you have dependents?

Do you have access to any deals which are softening the amount of money you spend on necessities, compared to what a person with fewer friends, allies, and connections might have to spend?

Are you saving up that money to fund the education or future health care of children or parents, and if so how would you react if someone forced you to spend that money and left you with nothing to cover those expenses?

Have you been fortunate in that you don't have any medical problems, other than those cheaply managed for you by your medical insurance (if any)?

Have you been fortunate in having access to mechanically reliable (and rather expensive) personal belongings that do not regularly break down?

And that's my basic contention with such childishness. The idea that not living hand-to-mouth would be a personal decision for most people is a fable plausible only to someone who never needed to work for his own living.

Not living hand to mouth is a decision for practically everyone. Here is someone who lives on $7k/year in the US and has private health insurance. You may not like living in a smaller house, a worse area, having fewer luxuries, or whatever else, but you chose the trade-offs. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

This opens you up to a very basic social criticism- if the only way for the average American to be financially secure is to live with the lowest available standard of living, what stake does the average American have in the current economic and political system?

If when told "people get hurt by not getting paid on time," you react by saying "this guy saves up tens of thousands a year on a relatively low salary just by living frugally," you are implying that "this guy" should be a model for everyone else. If that is true, then you need to come up for an explanation for why the median American isn't already living that way, other than "the average person is unusually irresponsible." By definition, the average person is not more irresponsible than average, and you cannot realistically expect more frugality from the average person than the average person actually has.

If the current system is only functional for people who put a great deal of time and effort into living cheaply, then for everyone else it is dysfunctional. Should they modify their behavior, or should they modify the system?

Does the employee's contract include a promise that the employer will make money?

No, but they do include a promise to work a certain number of hours. You raise a good point though: if the company were unprofitable would the employee owe nominal wage value of the hours, or could they argue that they did not cause any harm to the company because their going in to work would only have contributed to further losses? I suspect the former but I am open to arguments.

Or could they argue that under the working conditions that caused them to go on strike in the first place, the company was a priori doomed because under the basic premises of the free market, a company that aggravates its workforce that badly won't be able to find new ones?

[If this argument is invalid, and I think it is, then it undermines the basic assumption about the labor market, which is that laborers are free to move to places they find satisfying, and that this will actually work to improve working conditions in industries where a union doesn't impose such improvement]

Question: Do you think all Americans are systematically lazy and stupid for not having large reserves of savings

Yes. Have you ever been to China? I am not talking about the bottom of their society, who are still working the fields, but compared to even a below average American the guys I'm talking about are poor. And yet you'd be amazed how many people with a single tatty sofa in their family room have a bank account that's going to send their kid to the US, Australia, or UK for university. US is an instant-satisfaction, low-saving, high-debt culture. It's in some ways desireable compared to the alternative, but it's not the only way, and in other ways it's very much not desireable compared to the alternative.

In China you have cases of whole families working their asses off to send one or two kids to college, yes. And guess what? This happens because China is poor. Their per capita GDP is much less than what it would take for a typical Chinese person to send a child to a First World university. And educated people are in high demand. Therefore, it is no surprise that some of them are determined enough to pool the combined per capita GDP of several people, to make up a single account large enough to amass the resources to make that happen.

If the US were as poor as China, and we saw no one doing this, then yes we could reasonably complain. But it's absurd to take people in a country which is, measured in GDP per capita, rich... and criticize them for NOT living as if their country were poor.

Are we to expect the average person to accept minimal, primitive, unhappy living conditions indefinitely for the greater wealth and glory of his country? Or doesn't the basic "what's in it for me" argument of homo economicus extend to the average worker? Doesn't the median American have some right to expect that he can get a lifestyle which costs something vaguely like the actual average per capita GDP of the United States?

If not, why would he do anything other than reject the system, either by dropping out of it or by revolting for a bigger share of the pie?

[energiewende]

No, all of this is for private gain. You can buy more luxuries today, or you can sleep soundly at night knowing that nothing can happen that is going to make your position financially untenable for at least several months, if not longer. Americans choose luxuries; Chinese choose financial independence. Both are extremes on the spectrum, and the Chinese are poorer anyway (a good salary, which these people regarded themselves as having, is about minimum wage in the US). Of course luxuries become "necessities" when enough of your friends have them, and we're always inventing more luxuries. You can play this game, or you can step back and focus on what really matters. You can't have both. You should read the blog post I linked: someone on $250k who regards himself as hard-pressed. Why? Because his expectations renormalized to that income level.

Living frugally in the moderate sense of saving enough to survive a couple of months without a job just means, say, living how people in your economic stratum lived 20 years ago. Sounds easy? Well, no iPhone, no Netflix, no internet, bike to work if you can, etc. All those "necessities" gone! How can you accept for people to live this way?! Except, well, society seemed to go along fairly well back then, I do just about remember it, and people were much the same as they are now. Personally I derive a deeper and greater satisfaction from knowing that I am, in a very real sense, freer and more independent than practically everyone I know, than I would get from owning a television or a car (I traded to keep the internet). You pays your money, you takes your choice.

[Eleas]

Good thing that was not what I claimed. My claim was that a desire to silence the wailing of peasants was vile.

The problem is their wails are roughly as convincing as this.

To you, yes. Given the startling lack of justification for your stance, however, I can only assume your doubt stems from an unfamiliarity with the travails of adulthood.

And that's my basic contention with such childishness. The idea that not living hand-to-mouth would be a personal decision for most people is a fable plausible only to someone who never needed to work for his own living.

Not living hand to mouth is a decision for practically everyone.

Wrong. The fact that one person in a specific financial (and frankly fortuitous) circumstance can save gobs of money does not mean that his circumstances apply to everyone (or even anyone) else. He is a single anecdote and, frankly, one anecdote made to impress people on the Internet does not an analysis make. You may wax poetic about his Triumph of Will as much as you'd like, but the fact is that we're discussing a person who owns a garden (i.e. may not be compatible with the sort of jobs we're discussing), is part of a household in which both help out and both are healthy, works at home, and lives in an area where rent is cheap (again, may not be possible to combine with the sort of job we're discussing). What about student loans? What about children? What about stuff you need to maintain a presentable appearance at work? The car? The Internet connection that you actually do need for serious work today, contrary to your idiotic assumption of it being entertainment?

Your blathering about "decision" is transparent, because it's not merely a decision: living frugally is all too often work, and since the above-mentioned guy doesn't actually work for someone else, he's only living frugally in the sense that he's his own employer and thus pays himself, albeit invisibly. Someone who works for, say, the Government? They earn more money, but they also have many more expenses, because they don't have the time to spend working to keep expenses down.

Then, of course, there's people like myself, who need medical treatments and who would, in more barbaric societies, be cut off from medical treatments entirely, perhaps due to the sudden appearance of "pre-existing conditions". Of course, we all chose our biochemistry or diseases or attackers because they seemed a good idea at the time. If only we had been more disciplined.

...wait, no. Actually, the narrative of a "decision" only really works if one is prescient. "Choice" implies that you know the outcomes beforehand. All too frequently, life is a gamble, and the situation one finds oneself in will generally dictate the options one has and what doors are firmly shut. But it is a comforting fantasy for the callous, an aggressively middle-class version of the prosperity gospel but essentially the same thing: "if I'm better off it's because I'm better. If only these whiners had my greatness of spirit, they wouldn't need to complain so much."

[Knife]

No, all of this is for private gain. You can buy more luxuries today, or you can sleep soundly at night knowing that nothing can happen that is going to make your position financially untenable for at least several months, if not longer. Americans choose luxuries; Chinese choose financial independence. Both are extremes on the spectrum, and the Chinese are poorer anyway (a good salary, which these people regarded themselves as having, is about minimum wage in the US). Of course luxuries become "necessities" when enough of your friends have them, and we're always inventing more luxuries. You can play this game, or you can step back and focus on what really matters. You can't have both. You should read the blog post I linked: someone on $250k who regards himself as hard-pressed. Why? Because his expectations renormalized to that income level.

Living frugally in the moderate sense of saving enough to survive a couple of months without a job just means, say, living how people in your economic stratum lived 20 years ago. Sounds easy? Well, no iPhone, no Netflix, no internet, bike to work if you can, etc. All those "necessities" gone! How can you accept for people to live this way?! Except, well, society seemed to go along fairly well back then, I do just about remember it, and people were much the same as they are now. Personally I derive a deeper and greater satisfaction from knowing that I am, in a very real sense, freer and more independent than practically everyone I know, than I would get from owning a television or a car (I traded to keep the internet). You pays your money, you takes your choice.

So... the answer is to, in the richest country with the most goodies, live like a poor person. You know, like those people who work their ass off to come to this country because of the riches, so they can live like a poor person. Yeah, not making a lot of sense to me.

[energiewende]

If you don't have 2 weeks salary in the bank you are a poor person. Trick yourself with as much plastic crap as you like, you can be on the streets tomorrow. I can't.

Nor can those people in China - you are poorer than them, and less free.

...wait, no. Actually, the narrative of a "decision" only really works if one is prescient. "Choice" implies that you know the outcomes beforehand. All too frequently, life is a gamble

Therefore, make no efforts to mitigate risk and regard any suggestion that you do so as an unreasonable and unnecessary expense. Buy yourself an iPad with the "savings".

[Connor MacLeod]

My wife and I have over 10K saved in our bank account. Which may seem like alot, but the thing is if either my wife or I had some very bad luck, we could very well get screwed over by any number of factors. Expensive hospital bills for one (if you've hadn any experience with hospital bills and the costs, that 10K wouldn't be all that big a deal.) And if it was my wife who got injured seriously (actually, she's due for surgery in december...) she could be out of work for weeks or longer and thats a non-trivial dent in our finances (assuming that our health insurance managed to cover all the costs and we didn't get wiped out - which has been known to happen before.

But hey, according to SOME people, its our fault for not planning ahead intelligently, and we should go to hell. Goddamn parasites, not predicting totally unforseen circumstances and planning ahead.

[energiewende]

I don't understand. You claim to have both savings and insurance, which is what I advocate. Why then do you think I am criticising you?

[Connor MacLeod]

Because you're a stupid shit with the empathy of a lemming in a coma? You evidently (and moronically) think that savings and insurance is some magical 'get out of trouble free card', even though the link I just provided (and you evidently didn't read. GREAT JOB!) demonstrates that even with insurance AND savings I can still be fucked in this society.

But no, please, go on and explain to me how you aren't a soulless sociopath who is only concerned about himself just based on the stupid shit you post on this board.

Edit: Fuck, I'm lucky compared to someone like Broomstick, whose problems and experiences have literally been documented for years on this board, and provide yet another example of how you can be utterly fucked without even intending to despite all your preparations.

[energiewende]

I still don't understand - do you think having savings makes these rare events more likely? Do you think savings makes no difference, and therefore it's stupid to have savings? Do you wish you'd spent all that money rather than saving it on the off-chance your wife is injured? You seem to have decided you want to be angry and left deciding why for later.

If your post had read something like this:

"My wife and I have nothing saved in our bank account and $40k of credit card debts. Which may seem like alot, but the thing is if we only pay off the interest each month, it only eats a third of our income. Our health insurance won't cover any costs because we don't have health insurance."

Then I'd better understand your moronic rage.

---

The article cites high deductible health insurance plans which, while charging $5-10k for rare expensive treatments, also reduce premiums, making it much easier to accumulate savings. High deductible plans are a good idea. People who see that saving as free money they can blow on iPads are again the problem here.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Lay off him, guys. He doesn't know how the real world works and doesn't want to know. He thinks he's got all the answers and won't realize he doesn't until his circumstances go pear-shaped.

[Broomstick]

I submit the following quote as evidence energiewende is totally clueless about poverty and just Does Not Get It:

If you don't have 2 weeks salary in the bank you are a poor person. Trick yourself with as much plastic crap as you like, you can be on the streets tomorrow. I can't.

So... your savings makes you immune to house fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, meteor strike, cancer, extensive 3rd degree burns, severe bodily trauma resulting in permanent significant disability, lightning strikes, spontaneous sink holes, prolonged unemployment, and the like?

Don't make such patently stupid statements that a bank account insulates you from bad luck.

When I was laid off in 2007 I left my former employer with no debt, having already cut back to a bare-bones lifestyle, and an entire year's salary in the bank.

A couple years later I was applying for food stamps so we could eat daily.

It had nothing to do with blowing my money on plastic crap and toys, it had to do with the economy being so fucked up I couldn't get steady work for years and a stack of money that eventually ran out even if I managed to parcel it out for far longer than I initially expected it would last.

In the US our fucked up healthcare system only makes it work - even if you have insurance, getting cancer or a major injury can wipe you out financially because you're expect to pay 20% of the bill (and that's for very good insurance policies) and damn few people outside the 1% (and not even many of those) can possibly afford 20% of a multimillion dollar medical bill.

The problem, energiewende, is that you are clearly inexperienced in the way realty works. You can not prepare for every possible event. I realize the thought that there is a "correct" way to conduct yourself and if you only continue to do the "correct" thing you will always and forever be fine is a very attractive one but there are too many examples of people doing everything "right" and still winding up fucked. Yes, it is better to have more resources rather than fewer but there are circumstances where even maximal resources will not save your ass.

Despite being poor, and despite being frugal even by your standards it is nearly impossible for me to save any significant sum. For example - despite being a good employee earlier this year I was fucked up by an employer that simply decided to stop paying wages. How could I have prepared for that? My savings went towards bills while I was seeking an alternative job (which, fortunately, I found within two weeks of starting the search). Then the car's exhaust system conked out - didn't have sufficient funds to fix it, so parked the car. Then the truck - my backup vehicle - had both a clogged fuel filter AND a brake failure in the same afternoon. Oh fuck, now I have to get it fixed so I can get to the job I currently have... and there go the few dollars I had saved since starting the new job. OK, get the truck fixed... then my spouse winds up in the hospital. Oh, holy fuck, now, with no savings I have to borrow money to deal with the expenses that generates which are NOT recovered by health insurance, like the gas to get to and from the hospital, the time I had to take off work to deal with the health care BS (we're still dealing with a stupid doctor trying to bill us incorrectly from then), the time I needed to take to try to keep my spouse's new business from evaporating (because, you know, we ARE trying to improve our lot). Oh, and the lawyer I hired to try to get the wages I am owed but was never paid wants a bit of money to file the lawsuit against those former employers.... because the court won't register the lawsuit (which is necessary to recover 1/10 of my annual income, a significant sum for us) without a fee.

Now, which of those should I have simply not paid to maintain my savings? Please do enlighten me. Which of those is unessential or unimportant? (and I still haven't gotten the car fixed because we have at least one working vehicle right now) Maybe I should just ignore that someone owes me wages? Junked both our vehicles? (Keep in mind my spouse is disabled - doing that makes him housebound). Perhaps when my spouse collapsed in the back hallway of the house I should have just left him there to die as a money-saving measure? Or maybe just left him there unconscious with a dangerously high fever and returned to work to finish the afternoon rather than taking him to get medical attention, after all, it's so damn fucking important to earn four more hours of wages, right?

By the way - that's all happened in the last six months.

Oddly enough, we HAVE managed, at this point, to get all the bills paid (except for that one asshat doctor, but I expect to get that under control next week) even if we're still down a vehicle but it took ALL the money I took home in wages these past several months. There really was NOTHING left to put in the bank. (DO remember I am still owed six weeks of wages which, in an alternate reality without jackass thieving employers I MIGHT have put into savings.)

Oh sure, we should increase our income - and we have. I have roughly doubled my income each year for the past two years... which really shows just how destitute I was several years ago, that being at the poverty line is such an improvement. In reality, after you've had the rug pulled out from under you, you don't bounce back instantly. It takes years to climb back out of a hole and the older you are (and for my spouse, the more disabled) the harder and longer it takes.

And that's why you're a moron - you do not comprehend what it is to be on the bottom, to be poor and not merely inconvenienced. Yes, I actually DO manage to save a bit of money now and again... and then shit happens and it's gone.

[Connor MacLeod]

Lay off him, guys. He doesn't know how the real world works and doesn't want to know. He thinks he's got all the answers and won't realize he doesn't until his circumstances go pear-shaped.

Why the fuck should I lay off him? He seems to think that just becuase people don't subscribe to his 'absolute solutions to life' (YOU CAN'T PERCEIVE MY BRILLIANCE!) they clearly are at fault and deserve what they get. This is so laughably callous and deluded he deserves punishment over it. Particularily since he's either so utterly ignorant he can't see outside his own little bubble of reality or he's willfully ignoring what he doesn't want to acknowledge.

He specficially has this idea that somehow people can anticipate any conceivable debt or cost they may incur and avoid it simply by 'saving.' Even though you can save and scrimp all you like (In my case the wife and I saved up that money by basically not going out on vacation ever (except maybe overnight up to the twin cities or to a ren faire), by not buying anything nicer than a cheap DVD player and an old-style TV (no blu ray, no PS3 or 360, no ipods, ipads, iphones, no plasma screen TV, etc.) We buy clothes when they fall apart or don't fit (which means years pass before going out to buy new ones, and we typically buy them where we get deals.) We rarely go out to eat (I in fact do most of the cooking.) Neither of us drives a car newer than 2003 (and in my case mine is before 2000.) and we make it a point to drive as little as possible to save on gas (again no long trips.) Oh and no kids, which is a huge help there. Blah blah blah.

And with all that scrimping and saving, we can still get wiped out by a bad turn of luck or one medical stay. It needn't evne be 'rare' despite wherever he pulled that idea from (the land of magical healthcare pixies is my guess.) According to here average hospital stays for the US is something like over $15,000, and average of $4000 dollars per day of medical stay. That thin, dubious line of health insurance *might* cover me or it might not (which was the point of the link, I might add. The link I provided mentions that more than 56 million struggle with medical bills, and 10 million with insurance can't evne pay off their medical debts this year. Yeah I TOTALLY like those odds. I should note that bobalot provided an even earlier mention of the whole 'even with insurance you're screwed' thing here) Because I totally have control over the health plans provided by employers, I totally can change this and make sure I get the best cover- oh wait I can't. I take what we're given, and hope it will be enough if disaster strikes.

Basically its all a massive gamble and it still doesn't guarantee I'm not massively fucked if I or my wife have bad luck (which is far from certain. Even though I try to ensure at least 30 minutes of exercise every day and massively cut back my intake of junk/fast food and eat fresh fruits and veggies every day and blah blah blah.... I'm getting into my 40s and I could have anything happen. Bad back. Bad knees or joints. That's not exactly unheard of in my family and both my parents had to have surgery to fix those. And that doesn't include the 'bad luck' thing. Because as someone mentioned elsewhere recently, I totally get control over my genetic- oh wait I don't. Nevermind. Incidentally according to here a knee replacement - something I might possibly need in middle age - could cost me more than my entire savings if my insurance chose not to cover it. BAsically my life are in the hands of people who are in the business of making a profit, and paying for my medical expenses decreasees their chances of profits, and thus they have every reason to want to avoid having to pay for me and no doubt will try not to. not something I want to risk my life or health on, for obvious reasons.)

Now, if I were fortunate enough to live in Germany, and I had 10,000 dollars (although that would probably be something like 7000 euros given exchange rates), and the 'much less insane' medical costs and generally sane medical shit and safety nets, my saving might be sane and reasonable. But I live in America. Where a minority can shut down my government simply because they don't like what happens and feels that me gambling on my life is The American Way. Sucks to be me!

What this is all a really roundabout way to say is, I don't really begrudge those furloughed people getting extra money for their troubles, because I could sympathize with their plight and they were in a rough time. I have empathy, I can envision being in their position, and I can hardly be angry for them getting something extra in compensation for what they endured. If I were in their situation, I would want it, after all (GODDAMN PARASITE that I am - I am a product of my culture after all, and 'fuck you I got mine' is an Americna Virtue. Individualism and all that, as taught by the Tea Party.) When you're unemployed you're not thinking 'fuck yeah, FREE TIME TO DO WHATEVER I WANT.' You worry about the future. You worry if you're going to find a job. You worry if you'll be able to pay the bills. You worry that something catastrophic might happen the next day. You try to avoid feeling like a worthless individual (despite what this culture tells you) because being unemployed has some nasty psychological tolls. Given what most people say I expect they agree with me and thats why *they* aren't bothered by this. But for those who can only think of themselves, yeah I can see why they would be bugged, because they can only see WHATS THEIRS going to people who aren't them and thats BAD because its theirs and they only care about themselves.

If I have a 'moronic rage' as mr 'fuck you I have mine' puts it, its because people like him endanger not just their fellow Americnas with their selfishness, but everyone, and they do it unapologetically because they think they're more important than all those people who suffer because of their actions, and because they can't grasp what it actually means to live in an actual society.

Sometimes I wish Mike was still around these damn boards because he could do a better job of hammering this fool than I ever could. And it would be more amusing to watch him do it than me.

[Knife]

^
*applauds*

[Napoleon the Clown]

I wasn't being serious about laying off him, I was saying that as a way of essentially speaking down to him. Probably should have been clearer about that, but it was essentially meant to call him too stupid to convince.

[Connor MacLeod]

I wasn't being serious about laying off him, I was saying that as a way of essentially speaking down to him. Probably should have been clearer about that, but it was essentially meant to call him too stupid to convince.

I know. I just used your post as a great platform to launch into my response. My apologies if you thought it was directed at you.

[Napoleon the Clown]

It's all good. I find the douchebag's viewpoints reprehensible but lack the motivation to actually teach him better. Instead I settle with pointing out the willful ignorance and treat him like an incontinent puppy with brain damage. (Apologies to all such puppies everywhere)

[Connor MacLeod]

It's all good. I find the douchebag's viewpoints reprehensible but lack the motivation to actually teach him better. Instead I settle with pointing out the willful ignorance and treat him like an incontinent puppy with brain damage. (Apologies to all such puppies everywhere)

I'd be less harsh to him if he'd shown even the slightest willingness here or elsewhere to like, learn or give credence to other people's views. Instead he's got this pompous self assurance that he is ineffably right and noone else could possibly have worthwhile perspective that might alter the Absolute Truth (tm).

I can also take comfort that given his record of 'debating' so far he's probably going to run afoul of some mod at some point and then its bye bye.

[energiewende]

I submit the following quote as evidence energiewende is totally clueless about poverty and just Does Not Get It:

If you don't have 2 weeks salary in the bank you are a poor person. Trick yourself with as much plastic crap as you like, you can be on the streets tomorrow. I can't.

So... your savings makes you immune to house fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, meteor strike, cancer, extensive 3rd degree burns, severe bodily trauma resulting in permanent significant disability, lightning strikes, spontaneous sink holes

No. These are high cost, low probability events, against which I am insured (maybe not the really absurd ones like meteor strikes etc.).

prolonged unemployment, and the like?

Yes, I am substantially protected against that. My (fairly modest) savings will bridge the gap between any likely loss of employment not caused by the above things against which I am insured.

When I was laid off in 2007 I left my former employer with no debt, having already cut back to a bare-bones lifestyle, and an entire year's salary in the bank.

A couple years later I was applying for food stamps so we could eat daily.

It had nothing to do with blowing my money on plastic crap and toys, it had to do with the economy being so fucked up I couldn't get steady work for years and a stack of money that eventually ran out even if I managed to parcel it out for far longer than I initially expected it would last.

I said in my original post on this topic that savings cannot necessarily hedge against chronic underemployment, so I agree this circumstance may be unavoidable. This is also the correct function of the state support system. However, I made that response to people whining about a 2.5 week delay in salary (described as "vile"), not a 2.5 year removal of salary. You say you think I lack perspective - I think we are mostly in agreement, and I think that rather those people lack perspective.

In the US our fucked up healthcare system only makes it work - even if you have insurance, getting cancer or a major injury can wipe you out financially because you're expect to pay 20% of the bill (and that's for very good insurance policies) and damn few people outside the 1% (and not even many of those) can possibly afford 20% of a multimillion dollar medical bill.

The problem, energiewende, is that you are clearly inexperienced in the way realty works.

I agree, the US health system is indefensible. In my country I have private insurance and no copayment. So, this is more like different experience (though you've made clear in the past you think the US is the whole world).

You can not prepare for every possible event. I realize the thought that there is a "correct" way to conduct yourself and if you only continue to do the "correct" thing you will always and forever be fine is a very attractive one but there are too many examples of people doing everything "right" and still winding up fucked. Yes, it is better to have more resources rather than fewer but there are circumstances where even maximal resources will not save your ass.

Again, I don't understand the objection. It seems that you did what I am advising. Do you think it made you worse off? Sure, looking both ways before you cross the street won't help if a truck suddenly barrels around the corner at 150kph, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea to look both ways before you cross the street, or that someone who advises this to reduce your risk of being hit by a truck "lacks experience in the way reality works". Would you start shouting hysterically at such a person, describing in detail all the injuries you sustained from being hit by a truck despite looking both ways?

[Eleas]

If you don't have 2 weeks salary in the bank you are a poor person. Trick yourself with as much plastic crap as you like, you can be on the streets tomorrow. I can't.

Because poverty is a choice. Of course. No wonder it's so popular.

Nor can those people in China - you are poorer than them, and less free.

By that token, the dead are wealthily free beyond measure, being totally self-sufficient and with no obligation to any fellow citizens.

...wait, no. Actually, the narrative of a "decision" only really works if one is prescient. "Choice" implies that you know the outcomes beforehand. All too frequently, life is a gamble

Therefore, make no efforts to mitigate risk and regard any suggestion that you do so as an unreasonable and unnecessary expense. Buy yourself an iPad with the "savings".

I see. I wonder, did you even notice that what you just did was to ignore anything I said, just so you might latch on to a single word you thought you could safely misinterpret? Given your spectacular inability to meet my argument, your parents must have felt teaching you reading comprehension was a similarly unreasonable and unnecessary expense. Or maybe it's just that to you, what's actually being said and argued is less important than what you need it to be. If the world doesn't fit your narrative, then you pout and refuse to listen.

Nearly everybody makes efforts to mitigate risk, and only the patently stupid would think otherwise. The fact that it's not enough in large parts of today's world is something adults have come to accept, and that is why oblivious little twits like yourself rankle so. You don't care about reasons why your experience isn't shared by others. Because you need the world to be about choice and gumption, you refuse to believe other differences matter, evidence be damned. You have no interest, basically, in argument because your empty little mind is locked in a loop of I-don't-spend-money-on-luxuries-other-people-do-and-other-people-have-no-money-I-have-money-therefore-it's-their-fault-because-they-buy-luxuries-while-Chinese-don't-buy-luxuries-and-I-don't-spend-money-on-luxuries...-

...and because you find the loop comforting, naturally you don't want it to end. Thing is, sooner or later, it will. Reality has a way of asserting itself. And on that day, people will nod and say, "yep, that's what happens. That's life. See, that's why we almost killed you when my wife died and you said it was because she was lazy."

And then they'll probably help you cope with this strange new world, because unlike you they know what it's like to live in a society.

[energiewende]

If you don't have 2 weeks salary in the bank you are a poor person. Trick yourself with as much plastic crap as you like, you can be on the streets tomorrow. I can't.

Because poverty is a choice. Of course. No wonder it's so popular.

The poster said he could forgo luxuries but chooses not to because he prefers to spend his entire income on consumption ("not live like a poor person").

I think practically no one in the US is in poverty to the extent of those Chinese. Even Broomstick, for instance, seems to own two cars, at least one of which is a large, fuel inefficient model. People in the US in worse poverty are so due to disability, mental illness, or drug dependence, which are not ordinary circumstances.

Nor can those people in China - you are poorer than them, and less free.

By that token, the dead are wealthily free beyond measure, being totally self-sufficient and with no obligation to any fellow citizens.

The dead have no freedom of action or property.

...wait, no. Actually, the narrative of a "decision" only really works if one is prescient. "Choice" implies that you know the outcomes beforehand. All too frequently, life is a gamble

Therefore, make no efforts to mitigate risk and regard any suggestion that you do so as an unreasonable and unnecessary expense. Buy yourself an iPad with the "savings".

I see. I wonder, did you even notice that what you just did was to ignore anything I said, just so you might latch on to a single word you thought you could safely misinterpret? Given your spectacular inability to meet my argument, your parents must have felt teaching you reading comprehension was a similarly unreasonable and unnecessary expense. Or maybe it's just that to you, what's actually being said and argued is less important than what you need it to be. If the world doesn't fit your narrative, then you pout and refuse to listen.

Nearly everybody makes efforts to mitigate risk, and only the patently stupid would think otherwise.

No. Anyone who possesses a credit card (for any reason other than building rating, exploiting cashback, etc., and paying every bill immediately and in full) does not. Anyone who borrows money to purchase a car does not. Anyone who borrows money to buy a house that is too large for them does not (you might recall a certain financial crisis that happened recently). Most people in the developed world have next to no savings and substantial debts. I know even upper middle class people who have debts that exceed their salary multiple times and cannot afford out of pocket costs even in the 100s. These people are poor compared to me, even though I earn much less than they do.

The fact that it's not enough in large parts of today's world is something adults have come to accept, and that is why oblivious little twits like yourself rankle so. You don't care about reasons why your experience isn't shared by others. Because you need the world to be about choice and gumption, you refuse to believe other differences matter, evidence be damned. You have no interest, basically, in argument because your empty little mind is locked in a loop of I-don't-spend-money-on-luxuries-other-people-do-and-other-people-have-no-money-I-have-money-therefore-it's-their-fault-because-they-buy-luxuries-while-Chinese-don't-buy-luxuries-and-I-don't-spend-money-on-luxuries...-

...and because you find the loop comforting, naturally you don't want it to end. Thing is, sooner or later, it will. Reality has a way of asserting itself. And on that day, people will nod and say, "yep, that's what happens. That's life. See, that's why we almost killed you when my wife died and you said it was because she was lazy."

And then they'll probably help you cope with this strange new world, because unlike you they know what it's like to live in a society.

I've said that building substantial savings (relative to salary) is reasonably achieveable for most people (who have normal circumstances). This is true. The fact that the US has a much lower savings rate than China (which is a much poorer country) is powerful evidence in favour of this proposition.

Two people have tried to take issue with my claim, based on their personal anecdotes. Connor MacLeod shot your case in the foot - he did exactly what I recommended and benefitted substantially from it. He nonetheless believes this is a powerful counter-example for reasons that are unclear to me. Broomstick seems to have also done exactly what I recommended, benefited somewhat, but still ended up in a poor situation because of sustained bad luck. I agree that is possible. I just don't agree it is typical.

[Irbis]

No, all of this is for private gain. You can buy more luxuries today, or you can sleep soundly at night knowing that nothing can happen that is going to make your position financially untenable for at least several months, if not longer.

What you fail to comprehend, you imbecile, that like it or not, capitalism is set up in a way that spending money keeps the whole system going. People work because other people spent money to get whatever the first group produces. If everyone did what you propose to do, adopted lifestyle of Amish hermit - guess what would have happened?

Oh, yes, we would have entered spiral of unemployment with people being fired due to no demand to their work, more people being fired because of enlarged pool of people with money, etc, etc. Your 'perfect' choice would simply led to crash of system where every simple of your 'enlightened' parasites would have found himself out of job, living off savings, unless lucky enough to belong to mere handful of jobs that can't be excised of even barest lifestyles. We know that, because guess what, it was tried before in history, multiple times, and guess what, it did not work.

And one point from someone who has more life experience than you ever will. You propose to bike to work instead of using car? Ok, let's ignore the fact that most cities are very bike-unfriendly as they were set up in car cult; Do you know what it fucking takes to drive bike to work on mid distance, every day, including middle of winter? I happened to do just that due to lack of funds a few years back, and unlike your fantasies of 'just bike' you need to waste time and food maintaining peak physical condition (because unless you have perfect command of the bike you can easily slip and gather thousands of $ in medical bills - I like to think I do have very good one, yet I had my share of accidents). Then, you need to keep the bike virtually replaced in terms of parts (chain after winter? guess what snow + salt mixture does to it after one heavy season, you also need expensive gearboxes or keep replacing worn out ones, brakes, etc). You'd know that if you ever heavily used it without your mom paying for it. Hell, I even broke one bike frame (luckily it was still on guarantee) despite mild driving style - it had to have been badly welded or have structural failures. Let me guess, in your world I made a choice of purchasing bad bike that nearly set me back several hundred $ by lacking prescience?

[Eleas]

If you don't have 2 weeks salary in the bank you are a poor person. Trick yourself with as much plastic crap as you like, you can be on the streets tomorrow. I can't.

Because poverty is a choice. Of course. No wonder it's so popular.

The poster said he could forgo luxuries but chooses not to because he prefers to spend his entire income on consumption ("not live like a poor person").

"not live like a poor person" does not in any way, shape or form equate to spending one's entire income on consumption. You're just plain wrong.

I think practically no one in the US is in poverty to the extent of those Chinese.

True, you think so, but that's down to your ideology, not fact.

Even Broomstick, for instance, seems to own two cars, at least one of which is a large, fuel inefficient model.

Broomstick and her husband own two cars because due to their location, both adults need the car to reach their places of work. This is common in the US, as should be obvious to anyone not locked in his own myopia. Broomstick also works in a business where she needs to shift large amounts of material. The car is not a luxury. You want it to be, but it's not.

People in the US in worse poverty are so due to disability, mental illness, or drug dependence, which are not ordinary circumstances.

Your articles of faith do not interest me. Evidence does. Plus, speaking from personal experience, disability is fairly ordinary. Again, you'd be surprised at what happens in reality.

Nor can those people in China - you are poorer than them, and less free.

By that token, the dead are wealthily free beyond measure, being totally self-sufficient and with no obligation to any fellow citizens.

The dead have no freedom of action or property.

Neither have people who do not choose to expend money to gain that freedom of action and/or property. You dismiss such expenses -- Internet, Smartphones (which I use as a handicap aid), proper food, transportation -- as frivolous luxury, because you are that stupid.

Nearly everybody makes efforts to mitigate risk, and only the patently stupid would think otherwise.

No. Anyone who possesses a credit card (for any reason other than building rating, exploiting cashback, etc., and paying every bill immediately and in full) does not. Anyone who borrows money to purchase a car does not.

ITT, we see that energiewende cannot comprehend the need for investing in transportation. After all, he needs no car = nobody needs a car.

Anyone who borrows money to buy a house that is too large for them does not (you might recall a certain financial crisis that happened recently).

Anyone who did that may have been shortsighted, but was also misled by the banks into believing such a house would be an investment for the future, so that is hardly a compelling argument (albeit the first you've actually made so far).

Most people in the developed world have next to no savings and substantial debts. I know even upper middle class people who have debts that exceed their salary multiple times and cannot afford out of pocket costs even in the 100s. These people are poor compared to me, even though I earn much less than they do.

Proof would be nice.

I've said that building substantial savings (relative to salary) is reasonably achieveable for most people (who have normal circumstances). This is true. The fact that the US has a much lower savings rate than China (which is a much poorer country) is powerful evidence in favour of this proposition.

Not really. What you've actually said is that most people consider themselves poor because they buy luxury stuff and don't bother saving up, which is not just privileged and callous but blatantly untrue. Building substantial savings is actually easiest when you're single with no dependents, have a steady job, low expenses (which depends on a specific set of circumstances) and no debts. These are abnormal circumstances in the US, and hardly normal circumstances anywhere else that I can tell. The fact that the US has much lower savings rate than China is not evidence of any such thing: China is a completely different culture and a completely different economy with completely different circumstances, as you should know but probably don't.

Two people have tried to take issue with my claim, based on their personal anecdotes. Connor MacLeod shot your case in the foot - he did exactly what I recommended and benefitted substantially from it.

Actually, of course, he did no such thing. He actually attacked your smug complacency because he knew that no matter how much he saved, a single bad incident could financially wipe him out, something you refuse to admit could happen. This is at the heart of his point, and I understand your bafflement, because Connor looks at you smarmily going "that could never happen to me because I'm prudent", and says "no, I'm in this situation as well, and I'm aware I'm just one bad event from crashing and burning, and the only thing that divides me from a lot of people is that it's happened to them, and this is a wrong thing for society to accept." His point is 'there but for the grace of God go I', which as an expression of empathy is beyond you.

He nonetheless believes this is a powerful counter-example for reasons that are unclear to me.

Yes. Because it doesn't fit into your narrative, you discard it.

Broomstick seems to have also done exactly what I recommended, benefited somewhat, but still ended up in a poor situation because of sustained bad luck. I agree that is possible. I just don't agree it is typical.

Yes. Because it doesn't fit into your narrative, so you discard it.

[Broomstick]

I submit the following quote as evidence energiewende is totally clueless about poverty and just Does Not Get It:

If you don't have 2 weeks salary in the bank you are a poor person. Trick yourself with as much plastic crap as you like, you can be on the streets tomorrow. I can't.

So... your savings makes you immune to house fire, flood, tornado, hurricane, meteor strike, cancer, extensive 3rd degree burns, severe bodily trauma resulting in permanent significant disability, lightning strikes, spontaneous sink holes

No. These are high cost, low probability events, against which I am insured (maybe not the really absurd ones like meteor strikes etc.).

If your house burns down you're still homeless, at least for a time. You still don't get it. Even the best insurance in the world won't protect you from harm, it just tries to ease the aftermath.

prolonged unemployment, and the like?

Yes, I am substantially protected against that. My (fairly modest) savings will bridge the gap between any likely loss of employment not caused by the above things against which I am insured.

Unless your savings are sufficient to support you for the rest of your life the answer is "no", you aren't truly protected. I don't think you understand just how hostile the universe can be. My savings were more than sufficient to bridge a likely gap in employment... and then I had an unlikely one.

I said in my original post on this topic that savings cannot necessarily hedge against chronic underemployment, so I agree this circumstance may be unavoidable. This is also the correct function of the state support system. However, I made that response to people whining about a 2.5 week delay in salary (described as "vile"), not a 2.5 year removal of salary. You say you think I lack perspective - I think we are mostly in agreement, and I think that rather those people lack perspective.

I really wish you'd state which country you live in and what you do for a living, because otherwise your statements that you're protected from things are irrefutable.

But since you have stated on multiple occasions you are not from the US you need to admit that you don't know everything about the US, especially if your primary sources are US media.

MOST Federal employees are not highly paid. When I worked for them my wages were actually deliberately scaled to be on par with local rates for the same labor. The vast majority of those who went 2.5 weeks without pay were ordinary Americans. Most of them haven't had a raise in years even as the cost of living has gone up. Many of them have been subjected to unpaid furloughs that directly impacted their income and might have required them to dip into savings already to meet their obligations. The timing of the shutdown covering the first week of the month is particularly annoying since so many bills, including those for housing (mortgage or rent) typically come due that week.

If you can't understand how that is stressful or alarming or difficult you are a reprehensible tool lacking empathy for your fellow man.

Let me add something further, something about US culture many from outside do not understand. I've been told that most employed Europeans have formal employment contracts. Outside of professional sports and executive level employees, almost no Americans do. While that also adds an additional layer of uncertainty to employment here, it's also because payment of wages is a pretty near sacred obligation of employers. Failure to do so is legally a form of theft. It entitles the employee to up to triple the wage amount as compensation for damages. I have personal experience with this, alas.

This means that while it's a virtual certainty US Federal employees will get back pay for any shutdown (the Feds do not want that sort of thing to wind up in court), it's also a virtual certainty that any American will see forcing people to work for free is seen as stealing. So yes, some were simply unemployed, but others were still working despite the lack of paycheck, which is seen as a fundamental wrong in our culture. Even for those who weren't working, Americans understand the stress and inconvenience they were subjected to (something you clearly do not) and for the most part aren't begrudging them the money.

In the US our fucked up healthcare system only makes it work - even if you have insurance, getting cancer or a major injury can wipe you out financially because you're expect to pay 20% of the bill (and that's for very good insurance policies) and damn few people outside the 1% (and not even many of those) can possibly afford 20% of a multimillion dollar medical bill.

The problem, energiewende, is that you are clearly inexperienced in the way realty works.

I agree, the US health system is indefensible. In my country I have private insurance and no copayment. So, this is more like different experience (though you've made clear in the past you think the US is the whole world).

I happen to have insurance as well, and I am one of the fortunate few here that don't have copayments either. You clearly haven't had to deal with a significant hospitalization if you think that solves everything. Unless your health insurance also provides free taxi service for medical issues and an extra 8 hours in the day it's still a major imposition. Of course, here I also have the added aggravation of medical billing services that try to get money out of us even when they shouldn't. In other words, you once again demonstrate your inexperience with the real world.

Again, I don't understand the objection. It seems that you did what I am advising. Do you think it made you worse off?

I think that if I had been bold enough to take a few more risks with potential high pay-offs back when I had "extra" money I would be better off today. As it is, I did not play it quite as safe as you suggest and I think it paid off.

As just one example, I bought not just one but two vehicles instead of simply "biking to work" (which would be difficult in most of the US due to lack of transit systems). Oh, horrors, the luxury of it all! But it has provided me with reliable transportation in the form of having a back up, and at one time or another over the past few years I have used both those vehicles to generate income. They weren't a luxury, they were an investment, one that has paid off. We also bought some stock at one point (oh! Risk!) instead of simply plonking more money into savings, which paid off this year when we were able to sell of it at profit for a bit of an income boost when we needed it. One has to enter into risk thoughtfully, but failure to take any risks can be as bad as failing to save. I also have an advantage over most other Americans in that I actually have a pension coming to me when I retire, an oddity for my generation, but it's one of the reasons I put up with that workplace as long as I did. So yeah, my savings got wiped out, but not all of my retirement prospects.

In sum, you have a simplistic and inexperienced view of these things, and at best a second hand knowledge of actually living in the US as an average person/worker.