# Real Poverty versus Relative Poverty



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

In the rural area where I live I notice that there are quite a few "poor" people who always seem to have money for booze and cigs. Even more so it seems like over the last 5 years it has been increasingly common to see a new/near new car parked in front of a very run down trailer or clapped out house. On these same homes a couple of satellite dishes usually hang of the side. Go inside and you'll see a brand new flat screen TV from Wal-Mart. Eat a meal the majority of these places and it is usually nothing but a bunch of processed junk food. Yet they complain about being poor.

In my opinion poverty is a word slung around quite a bit these days with no real recognition of what real poverty is. I had a brush with real poverty a few years ago. I suppose the experience could be called a SHTF event.

I had been going to college, had to drop out because I found in the area no one wanted to hire someone going to school. I was pretty much told by everywhere I applied that they could find someone else who could work when they wanted them to work. So I decided to withdraw and find a full time job. I worked for little over a month and got laid off. Since I hadn't worked much before I didn't qualify for unemployment.

At this time I was living in an attic of a large house. Rent was real cheap, I think it was 160 bucks for the month and all utilities were included. There was seven other people in this house. 

So there I was with 250 bucks for the month of December, that had to pay rent, insurance, and a cell bill. Food and gas were extra. My car pretty much stayed parked that whole month. I managed to bum rides into town every once in a while to get food. After a while I ran out of money for food. So I made it a habit to go to certain grocery stores around noon. That is when they had all the free samples out. I went from 175 pounds down to 155 pounds in a month.

I was hungry all the time, and generally felt like crap due to the lack of food. That was real poverty. I was thankful though that I had enough money for the rent. Winter in Wisconsin isn't real friendly to people living in their cars. 

If anything that experience taught me to appreciate the little things and how to stretch a buck. Later on I did get a job, and much later I bought some land, put a trailer on it, and in eight month's time I had it all paid off. I still live in what most people would call poverty, but it is by choice. The difference between then and now is that I can afford gas for all my toys and I go to bed full  Plus I wind up borrowing money to friends who make twice as much as what I do. 

In my opinion most poverty in this country is more of a perceptual thing that actual real poverty. Not being able to afford gas for your new car doesn't mean your poor. It just means you should have been a little more wiser and bought something you can afford payments on plus the gas. There are a few more examples along those lines I could come up with.


----------



## menollyrj (Mar 15, 2006)

I SOOOO agree! We as a nation don't understand true need. I know there are sections of the population who do, but as a whole, we are overfed, underdisciplined (is that a word?), and unappreciative of our relative wealth when compared to other countries' true poverty. 

I have a family member who always complains about not having money, but she chooses to live in Massachusetts (spelling?), work a part time job, pay exhorbitant medical bills for in vitro conception of her children, take week-long vacations to Disney, eat prepackaged foods, purchase a huge luxury SUV (& finance for SIX YEARS), and and and and... My admonitions to change her lifestyle fall on deaf ears, but she is convinced she is poor and I am wealthy. HA! DH & I make a combined income of 2/3 of what she & her DH make, but we have made wise choices about where we live and what we do with our money. Who is living in poverty? Neither of us, but we are both living with our choices, good or bad. 

Sorry if I hijacked your thread, but it resonated with me (in case you couldn't tell).


----------



## MoGrrrl (Jan 19, 2007)

I've been complain about the prices of everything, and worrying about all the SHTF what if's. And then earlier this week I saw a story on the CNN website about the situation in Ethiopia; specifically they were talking about a 3 year old girl who weighed 10 pounds and was of course not developing. My daughter is 3, too.

So, you won't catch me saying "poor me" anytime soon!


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

So sadly true! I have been blessed to be able to travel in Latin America some and there have seen true poverty. Here in America, I live 5 miles from the border with the poorest county in my state. This is supposed to be a very poor region. However, I usually see exactly what the OP was describing. 

I have often seen a family standing there waiting for a handout. Their kids have more and more modern electronic toys than my dd, better clothes, and will have all summer fun camp fees comped. Once a friend had heard of a family begging for help. He had to wend his way around 4-wheelers and pricey toys in their yard to get to the front door to drop off a sack of groceries. He didn't return with the cash donation he and his dw had planned to give. It does irk me that so many of the "poor destitute families" have much more than we do, and that they continue to make bad, self indulgent decisions. There seems to be no incentive to shape up and help themselves.

Oh well, that's between them and God. My Bible says "If a man will not work, neither shall he eat." So I'd best get on about my day's work....


----------



## diane (May 4, 2002)

It has always been interesting to me that the truly needy are usually not found in the handout lines.


----------



## baldylocks (Aug 15, 2007)

You know, even though some folks make foolish choices and (e.g.) live in not great places but have big screen tvs, I would not trade places with them. I find that every time I start to get mad about how other folks live, I consider my place in life vs. theirs and I am happy. Some folks complain about having to work so others can get their welfare checks to blow on booze and satellite tv, etc. It's not my favorite thing either, but I would rather be the provider than the providee...I would not trade with them for anything. Just my $0.02


----------



## Ninn (Oct 28, 2006)

At first glance, one would think that if you looked in my driveway. There are 3 vehicles there. My truck, which LOOKS great but needs a lot of work-fully paid for in cash, btw. DH's car, which is 12 years old, looks new and needs a power steering pump. Fully paid for in cash. BUT, it gets good mileage. My son's very old car, which he paid cash for and is selling at a profit to buy something that gets better mileage. 

However, next to those nice looking vehicles is a trailer home that we bought for $1500 bux when we were homeless and living in our truck. The deck is only partially roofed over, and that part leaks. (it's on the list) The door has a 5 inch gap at the bottom and is crooked. Doesn't latch. (on the list) It's not level. The fencing is made from long pallets that carboard is shipped on. It's not done. The back yard needs mowing, the front is stacked with wood and a wooden door. The back porch is not attached at the roofline because the 4x4's are warped. (on the list) The skirting is a mess and needs repair. There is insulation underneath that needs repair. 

BUT-this same trailer has a brand new, energy efficient hot water heater, all new plumbing inside-run at the ceiling to prevent freezing, well repaired duct work, a brand new furnace and all the windows have been repaired and caulked. It also has a much more useful porch than it came with and a pretty happy family inside. We have 5 people and more animals than I care to admit living in that thing. We are making it work with what we have. The vehicles were necessary in order to remain employed and continue repairing this trailer. 

If you were to come inside and see my brand new computer, and brand new (to me) washer and dryer, you'd probably flip. But DH comes home covered in sawdust, which ruins washers really quickly. And the computer was purchased by DH as a gift for me, for my college education. There is no cable tv, no satellite dish, no big screen anything (unless you count the snake tank). But there are tons of books, which people around me consider a luxury! 

We're doing ok, but we have used up all our savings catching up bills from hubby being laid off this winter. We hadn't budgeted as much as we needed to for some things. I'm still short on 2 bills, but catching up. THe food storage is GONE, as we supported 3 households with it. Im slowly rebuilding that and now wishing I hadn't shared so well. THere is still no shed, so I'm still paying someone else to store my stuff for a while. That bothers me. It will end soon. 

I'd prefer a nice house with some acreage. But then, I wouldn't be able to pay the taxes without another job. Which would mean I'd have to drop out of school. So yeah, our income is WAAAYYY below the poverty level. But, we don't get any aid from anyone and we are making it work with what we have. We are not rich by any standards. Mac and cheese from a box is seen here alot because its less expensive than home made. My kids are hungry. Like, nearly ready to be hospitalized for malnourishment hungry in one case. (part of that is her fault). BUT the bills are paid and there is SOME food here. There is never junk, but a full meal once a day is about all we can manage for another month. That's hard to accept with a toddler in the house. (he eats before anyone else, to be sure he is healthy) Hence the need to find ways to economize on heating this winter. 

I guess poor or poverty stricken is relative. I don't think we're doing that badly. There is room for improvement, which is why I am job hunting again. But we're making it work. Sure looks bad at a glance, though, doesn't it. All those nice cars outside that nasty trailer.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Ninn said:


> At first glance, one would think that if you looked in my driveway. There are 3 vehicles there. My truck, which LOOKS great but needs a lot of work-fully paid for in cash, btw. DH's car, which is 12 years old, looks new and needs a power steering pump. Fully paid for in cash. BUT, it gets good mileage.


After reading your post it would appear that you took mine somewhat personally. I have nothing against owning a nicer car. However the problem is when one buys a car they couldn't really afford in the first place on payments. I see this time and time again. 

I knew a girl working a fast food job part time for minimum wage. She lived a quarter mile from work and decided that she really really needed a 12,000 dollar car. After the first month she was whining how she couldn't make the payments. Living that close she didn't even need a car, and for 2000 dollars she could have bought a decent car and could have been able to afford the payments. Sure it wouldn't have looked as neat driving down the street packed full of her friends, but it would have gotten the job done.

I had a friend that bought a 3 year old bike. It was one of those Yamaha Harley knock-offs. I believe he financed the whole thing which came to about 8,000. I told him it was a bad idea from day one. Luckily for him he had a land lord that would continually let him slide on rent. He had his electricity shut off, cell bill cut off, even went without having food for a while just to make the minimum payment on the thing. Two years later he is still paying it off, hardly rides the thing. Since it sat outside most of the time it is getting a nice rusty sheen on most of the chrome parts. He still has trouble paying rent even though his rent is 250 a month with all utilities included. My friend makes 700 a week, but somehow manages to spend every dime he makes. One day he was complaining how he didn't make enough money but then later told me how he was going to buy a new car to "save" money. At that time he was two months behind on rent. Once he said he was going to quit paying the 50 dollar a month premium for his health insurance to save a little cash. He gets his insurance through the work place, and for what he pays it is a pretty good plan. I would have to pay five times that if I wanted the same insurance.

A car is the biggest area where one can cut back. No one needs a new car or even a newer car. Obviously new cars need to be bought otherwise there wouldn't be any used ones. But coming back to my original point, buying a 15,000 dollar gas sipping compact saves one nothing when the previous car was paid for in full. 

I have a big problem with poor people buying lots of things on credit and then complaining about how they have no money. If your kids are going to bed hungry and you have a new motorcycle outside, there is something wrong with that picture. Unfortunately that picture is one I see all too much around here.


----------



## FalconDance (Feb 4, 2007)

PhilJohnson said:


> I have a big problem with poor people buying lots of things on credit and then complaining about how they have no money. If your kids are going to bed hungry and you have a new motorcycle outside, there is something wrong with that picture. Unfortunately that picture is one I see all too much around here.


We have friends who love their children - 4 of them at home - BUT their electric is shut off every few months for non-payment. Last year we even loaned them the money to have it turned back on once - never again since it has never been paid back (they now reckon they'll "work it off" by helping husband re-roof our house, help that isn't really needed) even after they got their tax return and _we _were in danger of _our_ electric being turned off!

They receive food stamps but a diet of processed foods and soda doesn't make those dollars stretch very far. They know how to garden but the landlady won't let any of her tenants put in gardens (she owns 22 properties in a town of 300 folks - talk about a *****) and they don't think container gardening is worth their time and effort. They can also hunt but have no place to do so. Their vehicle is broken down more often than not, they don't have scads of really nice things, either.

BUT there's _always_ enough money for beer and cigs. No electric, no excess of fresh foodstuffs, but there's always beer and cigs.

They are poor but it's their choices on what to do with their money that makes them stay that way.


----------



## menollyrj (Mar 15, 2006)

Oh, Ninn! Keep on keepin' on. It sounds like you have a plan, and your situation doesn't sound anything like the relative I was griping about. She makes choices about what to drive/eat/have based on "I deserve this," or "Everyone around me has this." Your decisions seem to be based on need, which was the OP's point. Many of us don't grasp true need because we make our decisions based upon wants.

-Joy


----------



## unregistered29228 (Jan 9, 2008)

We've lived in third world countries and seen REAL poverty first hand. I did some volunteer work in the favelas in Brazil, and *those* are poor people. They lived in houses they made from cardboard and scraps, and sometimes several families shared a one-room shack. They had a dirt floor, no running water, they cooked over a fire and ate beans or rice three times a day if they could get food. Most of them had never seen a doctor or a classroom. The lucky ones had a naked lightbulb hanging at the ceiling, with electricity they split off a neighbor's house. They died young, lots of their babies died in infancy, and they suffered every day of their lives. They were truly grateful for the food, clothes and medicines we brought them.

Even the homeless in the US can go to a soup kitchen and maybe find a bed for the night at a shelter. People who are considered "poor" in our country have TVs and can get subsidized housing, welfare, food stamps, WIC, and be treated for free or reduced rates at hospitals. I'm not saying they enjoy living that way, but it hardly qualifies as "poor" as the rest of the world sees it. And it really burns me up when I see or read about people throwing out staple foods from the food pantry, or buying steaks with food stamps. Those same people will complain about what they're getting for free, and somehow have money for cigarettes, booze, manicures, highlights, and jewelry.


----------



## Madame (Jan 1, 2003)

As long as I have food in my belly, clothes on my back and a roof over my head, I'm not poor.
Ninn, when I lived in the big city I sometimes volunteered at a soup kitchen. After everyone else was fed, the volunteers were fed too. If there's a soup kitchen in your area, this might be a good way to swap labor for food.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Our running comment here at home is:
"We are not poor, just broke".

We have all the bills paid, plenty of food, a roof that keeps us dry and many other small blessings so we don't consider ourselves poor, just broke....

We manage to put money up every month, divided between savings and emergency fund, always have a little change in my pocket for sons' ice cream money (after he does something good) and while that leaves little left for the "necessities" that most people want, we have no needs.

I lived in Rabat, Morocco while I was in the Marine Corps and actually saw people washing their clothes in the run-off water from one of the palaces there....they are poor, we are not.


----------



## treesonggal (May 4, 2006)

"Many of us don't grasp true need because we make our decisions based upon wants."

SOOOOOOO..True!

If more people were like Ninn there were probably be more people willing to donate to food pantries, etc.

Around here, I've noticed that people are choosing NOT to donate because they've grown tired of "poor people making stupid choices" as one pantry worker recently told me. I have a friend who repeatedly asked for assistance at the local outreach for $ to pay her propane, her electric and her car insurance. Yet she rents movies every weekend, drives a new truck (with high insurance, low gas mileage and a truck payment), does not work any job on a steady basis and complains, complains, complains about her lot in life.

We, on the other hand, have parked my $100 car because we can't afford insurance on it and don't have a need for two vehicles anyway. We've planted a large garden, seldom ever go anywhere, hold yard sales and sell scrap to supplement George's small SS check, and have almost two years of food, cleaning supplies and toiletries stockpiled. We also live in a mobile home (1971) that was given to George! And we consider ourselves fortunate.

We may want things but we know we have our needs met and are SATISFIED with that. There's just too much dissatisfaction going around.


----------



## ajharris (Jan 26, 2006)

PhilJohnson said:


> Even more so it seems like over the last 5 years it has been increasingly common to see a new/near new car parked in front of a very run down trailer or clapped out house.


I live in a run down trailer, and have a newer vehicle. I live in the trailer, because it is paid for. Everything I have is paid for except the car. I would have kept the old one that was paid off, but it wouldn't hold all my children. And no, I don't have a dozen, I have 3, 2 of them are in carseats. Does that put me on your list?


----------



## Kmac15 (May 19, 2007)

When my son started smoking I told him that maybe it was a good thing, as now he would never be asking me for money, I alway say if you can afford tobacco you must not be broke.

I have said the same thing to my neighbor, when she 'poor mouthed' about being so broke but the next words out of her mouth is where she is going on vacation next. 

I have no problem with being poor or broke, but do not ask me for help when you are that way because you are doing things that I cannot afford to do.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

ajharris said:


> I live in a run down trailer, and have a newer vehicle. I live in the trailer, because it is paid for. Everything I have is paid for except the car. I would have kept the old one that was paid off, but it wouldn't hold all my children. And no, I don't have a dozen, I have 3, 2 of them are in carseats. Does that put me on your list?


List? What list? More seriously my main point was about people who make foolish financial desicions. If you can afford the car great, if your electric is getting shut off because the car payment is too high, or you can't feed your kids because you need cig money, well that is a different story.

For the record I live in a mobile home. It was built in 1964, still in decent shape but by no means looks new. If you were to drive by you would see a nearly new four wheeler, and two motorcycles which are both in great shape. I paid cash for all of them. By your definition that would put me on my own "list". The difference between the folks I am talking about is they complain about the curcumstances they are in even though they could take steps to pervent it. If one is buying something because they really want it but don't really have the means that is the kind of person I am talking about. There is a difference between want and need. 

I have my nice "toys" because I saved and scrimped and didn't need the instant gratification that easy credit provides. I don't complain about making only $10,000 a year, it mets my needs. I don't stand in line at soup kitches or use heating assistance in the winter or use food stamps.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Everyone - please remember that some of those that are in the fiscal difficulties, started within their means at the beginning of a loan, etc.
Then come layoffs so companies can get 'new (less expensive) blood' and/or medical difficulites that can over do even people with insurance. ETC.

Yes, there are those that are foolish and WANT, want, want. Yes - I'd think cigarettes/tobacco products are not good for much (except maybe some old fashioned cures) except letting money flow.

So, I think we all know many whom would LOOK like they are the ones that are the subject of these observations. And there are some of us that are maintaining the 'we're okay' look while worrying about the state of the economy, the way a good paycheck is becoming a decent paycheck on the way to a just 'okay' paycheck - to get the bills paid that were entered into based on good faith on the world, our world status when we signed on the dotted line.

Angie


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

My son has a friend who is poor.

I think that the poverty is due to bad budgeting. I am glad that I am not them! They might have the odd expensive "toy", but they have also needed to use the food pantry. 

They do not have a LOT of toys, just a bit more than I do. Just a bit too many for folks who run out of food.

This is a good kid, and I would bite my tongue clean off before I said anything to him OR to his parents! And, I think they are trying. I just think they are not good at handling money.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I've tried to stay clear of philosophical and political debates lately. They sap my energy and squander my good nature at a time when I'm short of both. However I couldn't seem to help myself with this thread.

Over a decade ago, I was on foodstamps. I had a wife and a newborn son and was earning less than $12k a year in the military. When I was deployed, about every week while shopping my groceries and paying with food stamps my wife would have to endure some jerk's commentary on what was in her grocery cart. If she put some steaks in the cart then someone would sarcastically mention how THEY couldn't afford steaks but they were glad people on welfare could. Even well-meaning souls would offend when they pointed her to the cheapest, lowest quality items on the shelf instead of what she wanted which was better quality food. I'm thankful to God we are no longer in that situation and haven't been since they day I was discharged, but my wife still complains about people's attitudes towards the poor and it stems from that specific time period in our lives. 

You have no idea what someone's financial circumstances are. It's none of your business. You have no input into the decisions they make about how to spend their money. It's none of your business. If it's your tax dollars you think they're spending, then write your congressmen and start voting for politicians who'll stop the legal plunder, but leave the recipients of the government's aid alone. It's none of your business. If you chose to help a person out through charity, be it a stranger, neighbor, or family, then you can't decide how that charity will be used or it's _not charity_. Your responsibility ended with the giving of the charity. How that charity is then handled is, once again, none of your business.

We are responsible for our own budgets and financial futures. Some people exercise poor fiscal judgement or have a lack of financial discipline. There's a multi-billion dollar industry servicing debt in the United States so there's a whole lot of poor fiscal judgement going on. 

If a person who is obviously having trouble comes to you and asks for advice or help then that's a different story, but otherwise ... I don't think we're even entitled to an opinion as to how other people spend their money, and we're certainly not entitled to complain about it publicly on a forum.


----------



## moonwild (Mar 20, 2006)

Today a friend called and asked me if I would drive her to the food bank as she was out of gas and groceries. Her SS check comes in Friday and food stamps on the 6th.
The trip is 50 miles round trip and I was canning rhubarb sauce so told her I couldn't but I would be glad to give her some rice, beans, and mac and cheese to hold her over til she got her food stamps.
She said:
Oh No I never eat that kind of stuff!!
Hmmmm....poverty??


----------



## CarolynRenee (Jan 30, 2008)

Quoting: "You have no idea what someone's financial circumstances are. It's none of your business. You have no input into the decisions they make about how to spend their money. It's none of your business........" 

I would like to politely dissagree with you on this point. It IS my business when there are "recipients" of tax dollars who do not NEED the assistance. We can say "vote this guy out" or "petition your politician" all you want, but until the true free-loaders stop abusing the system and stealing money from my family, I will continue to feel discontent and it will continue to be my business.

My husband works full time. Pay is horrid, but we don't have credit card bills, fancy vehicles, too many "toys" and it allows me to be at home taking care of our homestead (food, fuel, future child). We could easily be accepting welfare, but would sell most of our worldly possessions to buy food or pay utilities before we took taxpayer money for ourselves. For every "recipient" on welfare, there are many more people, more in "need" that have money taken from their table to pay for others. The difference is that the people who work that are not on welfare have no choice if they want to contribute to "charity" in the form of government assistance. 

I am not saying that there are not truly needy people out there. But there is WAY too much free-loading going on. This is not speculation on my part, but first-hand knowledge (at least in my area).

I am sorry that you feel you must defend your reasonings for accepting welfare. Although I do not know your exact circumstances, I do not think the comments about charity or government assistance to the poor was referring to persons in your situation.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Ernie, I have no problem with people using charity in a bind. Nor do I have any problem with people buying higher quality food with food stamps. What I have a problem with is someone telling me (this has happened quite a few times as of late) how they have so rough mean while they have money for frivolous expenses. Whether it is my business or not it still irks me. I did not post this as a personal attack against every person who has ever found themselves in need of charity or had to use a government assistance program. 

This is my opinion of a general observation of people who I have talked to in my area and it is by no means indicative of every person in need in this country. With that being said we should be thankful that we do have government assistance available for those who need it. Other people in other areas of the world do not have that option. I still stand by my original opinion that poor people in this country have it many times more well off that most in other countries and sometimes a little perspective is needed in evaluating what truly denotes poverty.

To me real poverty is not being able to afford health care, not being able to afford shelter, not being able to afford to get to your job, going to bed hungry, and no ability to pay for basic utilities. With that said if you buy 8,000 dollar motorcycles or 12,000 dollar cars on minimum wage and then complain about the payments a month after they come due don't expect me to ooze with sympathy. It was these kind of examples I was originally talking about. I was not talking about poverty induced by losing jobs or any other legitimate reason.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

I think it is a scandal that a serviceman does not earn enough to feed his family.

And, I think it a scandal that those who CANNOT work are feeling pressured to share their medical history with half the population at the store. This isn't right.

When you throw in low-lives who steal and cheat from those who are indigent, it looks even worse.

I have yet to hear a solution, though. Something that WILL! feed the crippled and elderly, and care for the families of those who are stationed overseas, AND not get ripped off by low-lives!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I feel like my point has been missed here.

CarolynRenee: Reread my comment for comprehension. That was over a decade ago. As for my views on it now: the government has no place in charity or social programs. That is the place of religion, be it Christian or humanist beliefs.

PhilJohnson: Why would you spend _one minute_ out of your life listening to someone complain about something as trivial as that? You have no responsibility to suffer fools, and if one comes up to you in his brand new truck and starts complaining to you about how broke he is, then feel free to unload on him with both barrels, figuratively speaking. That's what I would do in that situation, though it's never actually happened in all my years. People don't single me out for random conversations about financial matters, and those who know me wouldn't bring it up. 

Terri: I think it's a scandal that we need servicemen at all. 

As to the government taking our money and giving it away in socialist programs, I am as against that as any man can be. The State has no authority to do such and it is legal plunder as defined by Bastiat in "The Law". However, it is simply human nature to freeload off of such a nebulous entity as "the guv-mint" and it's unrealistic to expect people to change when they're living on the backs of others. What we must change is the will of these politicians to be so free and easy with our money. I cannot vote out the meth-addict collecting a welfare check to feed her eight children with fathers unknown. I _can_ vote out the congressman who passed the budget who funded that social program, and I have the responsibility as a taxpayer to do so.

As to charity, well, that's the place of religion so I can't separate my religious views from my philosophical ones in this matter. When I pass a homeless man on the street I could easily say, "I'd give him the $5 in my pocket that I don't need but he'll just spend it on booze or drugs." However, that's as morally wrong as if I ignored him completely. Jesus did not command that I give to "only those who deserve it" or "those to whom I see fit to give to". He commanded me to give. If I give up that $5 then I have satisfied my obligation under the Lord and done right. A little treasure has been set aside for me in heaven. If that homeless man then decides to go spend it on booze or drugs then _that is between him and God_ and the sin of it is on his head.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Can someone explain to me how we can graduate so many from high school who have learned nothing about handling money or saving? What is more important?


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

I've known millionaires who masqueraded as blue collar workers. I've also known some homeless who borrowed clothing and looked dressed to the nines for a job interview.

The main point here being you can't judge someone on how they look, and imho that includes their financial fitness or lack thereof.

Also lately, medical science is starting to uncover more information regarding the condition of addiction to substances - alcohol, tobacco, etc., and they're finding it relates to a difference in brain chemical balances. The consensus of new theory being that these people are self medicating in order to function better in life. Translation: addiction is a medical condition. Stop picking on the addicts already. They can't help it anymore than someone with cancer can be blamed for their condition.

It seems to be such a waste of energy to be angry over some 'lowlife sucking off the system' a few nickels and dimes, when we have entire industries sucking billions and trillions by buying our political leaders to make their theft legal and those of the petty thiefs illegal and punishable through fines and jail sentences.

Unfortunately, the propaganda they've fed through the MSM over the last few decades makes us hate each other and praise those who steal the most for the jobs they provide (not talking about small business btw). In my eyes, all those jobs have done is to isolate us from each other more, and make us all more dependent on a system constructed around prying your hard-earned cash out of your hands at every second of the day.

In reality, if a person has the means to provide themselves and/or their family year-round sustenance, they are among the wealthy of the world.

Our views are skewed simply because we're surrounded by too much excess and media propaganda making us feel like everyone lives like kings.

I have to laugh when I see commercials of young twenty somethings driving expensive sports cars and living in mansions with small children. Yeah right?

Okay. Rant over. 

There's a reason why we've all been advised against judging others. I do try not to, and threads like this remind me of why it's always rubbed me the wrong way.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

DJ in WA said:


> Can someone explain to me how we can graduate so many from high school who have learned nothing about handling money or saving? What is more important?


What's more important is having a dependent, time-starved and ignorant populace to feed the 'consumer economy'. Otherwise, the country will sink.

ETA: Those poor people who don't know how to handle money make the financial institutions lots of money. People who can't handle money are gravy for banks and pay day loan centers. Well . . . were gravy, until they got carried away. There's a reason why the bankruptcy laws were changed before the credit bubble came in full swing. They love unsophisticated borrowers. And they're still giving out loans to people without social security numbers.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

DJ in WA said:


> Can someone explain to me how we can graduate so many from high school who have learned nothing about handling money or saving? What is more important?


The Latin term is _in loco parentis_, meaning "in place of the parent". 

By "in place of the parent", it means the entire social structure of society that is set up to weaken or outright subvert the beliefs and values of the child as taught to them by the parent. You teach your child one thing, then some "authority" such as the school or television teaches them something else that conflicts. 

It is not the school system's place to teach children about fiscal matters. That is the place of the parent. I would not want the school system, run by a government that is TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, to be teaching my children about how to properly manage their money.


----------



## naturewoman (Nov 12, 2002)

I used to volunteer for a fish bank. One thing I learned very quickly, was how easy it was to start judging people who came for free food when, in fact, I knew nothing about their personal circumstances. Yes, I could make assumptions...but you all know what that means.

I think one of the most important lessons I learned was how to be truly generous and not attach strings to gifts.


----------



## tickranch (Jan 6, 2007)

pickapeppa said:


> addiction is a medical condition. Stop picking on the addicts already. They can't help it anymore than someone with cancer can be blamed for their condition.


B... S...

I quit smoking 8 months ago, cold turkey. Yea it sucked, yea I was addicted, yea there was withdrawal, but I quit. I chose to start smoking and I chose to quit.

My MIL has cancer, she did not choose to have cancer and she has chosen to fight for her life but she is losing.

Sooooooooo not the same thing!


My DH is a recovering alcoholic, sober for six years. He was addicted, he quit cold turkey, he made that choice.

I know that addiction is a 'medical condition' but it is within someones power to change.


Sorry for the thread drift but that really burned my butt, saying they can't be blamed for their condition  really now, and then to compare it to someone with cancer B... S...


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

tickranch said:


> B... S...
> 
> I quit smoking 8 months ago, cold turkey. Yea it sucked, yea I was addicted, yea there was withdrawal, but I quit. I chose to start smoking and I chose to quit.
> 
> ...


Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Have you considered the possibility there is a range of addictive strength from one individual to another? Then there are those without a support network, in stressful living situations, suffering long-term emotional pain, etc.

Is it not possible some people's brain chemistry isn't as whacked out as others? Or perhaps there are neurotransmitters which haven't been studied yet (there are hundreds of them btw) that play a part in the difference between those who can quit cold turkey vs. those who can't. Maybe you and your husband were at a lower level on the bell curve of addictive disaster than others. Lucky you. 

Congratulations, btw, to both of you.

Again, is it really worth it to hold those who won't or can't quit in such contempt when science hasn't exactly uncovered all the answers yet?

In the case of addiction, I don't feel it's fair to judge those who struggle with that as imbicils of financial management when there is obviously something at play beyond their control.

It just makes them an easy target for people who don't have a better place to put that anger.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2008)

Mom_of_Four said:


> We've lived in third world countries and seen REAL poverty first hand. I did some volunteer work in the favelas in Brazil, and *those* are poor people. They lived in houses they made from cardboard and scraps, and sometimes several families shared a one-room shack. They had a dirt floor, no running water, they cooked over a fire and ate beans or rice three times a day if they could get food. Most of them had never seen a doctor or a classroom. The lucky ones had a naked lightbulb hanging at the ceiling, with electricity they split off a neighbor's house. They died young, lots of their babies died in infancy, and they suffered every day of their lives. They were truly grateful for the food, clothes and medicines we brought them.
> 
> Even the homeless in the US can go to a soup kitchen and maybe find a bed for the night at a shelter. People who are considered "poor" in our country have TVs and can get subsidized housing, welfare, food stamps, WIC, and be treated for free or reduced rates at hospitals. I'm not saying they enjoy living that way, but it hardly qualifies as "poor" as the rest of the world sees it. And it really burns me up when I see or read about people throwing out staple foods from the food pantry, or buying steaks with food stamps. Those same people will complain about what they're getting for free, and somehow have money for cigarettes, booze, manicures, highlights, and jewelry.


People in developed countries tend to forget that they are in the minority, and they are rich by the standards of most of the world.

Almost everyone in this country, even those we consider as "poor", have a house, a car, a TV, electricity, stove, fridge, a bed, multiple changes of clothes, and so on. This is truly a rich country, and we are luckier than we realise.


treesonggal said:


> Around here, I've noticed that people are choosing NOT to donate because they've grown tired of "poor people making stupid choices" as one pantry worker recently told me. I have a friend who repeatedly asked for assistance at the local outreach for $ to pay her propane, her electric and her car insurance. Yet she rents movies every weekend, drives a new truck (with high insurance, low gas mileage and a truck payment), does not work any job on a steady basis and complains, complains, complains about her lot in life.


Giving is a tricky thing.

I try to help individual people after I find out enough about them to see if they're really in need. It makes a big difference to them, whereas if I gave that handful of groceries to the food bank, it not only is insignificant compared to the amount they receive and distribute, but I also have no way of knowing who it goes to.

I also like to give to the homeless shelter. Unfortunately, haven't been able to do much of that lately due to skyrocketing food prices. $20 at a time bought a significant amount of food last year, but not so much this year. Plus our own grocery bill and gas going higher, so it's harder to squeeze out $20. But I like giving to the homeless shelter when possible. Those people really do need the help.


----------



## tickranch (Jan 6, 2007)

pickapeppa~ I don't think it is beyond their control, I believe it IS within their power to quit. I have been to many AA meetings, I have seen many different levels of addiction. Some of my best friends are ex junkies. Hardcore addicts. They all quit, some relapse and then quit again, it is always a struggle. Some days are better than others but it is always there.

I suppose my ~lucky~ self could have a low level of addiction. Perhaps it was a little easier for me than some, I don't know. As I said before, it sucked but I did it.

You can throw out excuses about brain chemistry and neurotransmitters and how there is more study that needs to be done, but that is all they are, excuses.

It was your comment comparing addicts to someone with cancer, to say they are just as blameless, was what irked me.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

I learned that hunger (burning, nauseating hunger) can put things into absolute perspective like nothing else when it comes to defining what real poverty is. Been there, done that, thankful for the lesson & thankful for every morsel of food I put in my mouth now.

Re: the charity issue, I believe that I am doing as Christ commanded when I donate to a charity. I try to use wisdom and discernment when choosing the charity. If that charity is mishandling my donation, that's between them & The Boss. At the same time, I have a family member who goes hungry because he takes what little $$ he makes to buy drugs. I will not give him food anymore because I believe I'm only enabling him to continue his self-destructive behavior. That's between me and The Boss.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

naturewoman said:


> I used to volunteer for a fish bank. One thing I learned very quickly, was how easy it was to start judging people who came for free food when, in fact, I knew nothing about their personal circumstances. Yes, I could make assumptions...but you all know what that means.
> 
> I think one of the most important lessons I learned was how to be truly generous and not attach strings to gifts.


I agree with you whole-heartedly on this.

For my part, charity is part of my faith. When I first came back to the church I had one of those mind-altering, profoundly deep experiences that had to have been from God. I can't communicate the details of it very well, but the gist of it was this: When Jesus _commanded_ us to give to the poor, he did not qualify his statement with adjectives. He did not say to give only to the poor that you think deserve help, or those who will use your charity wisely, he just said give to the poor - if you have two coats, give one of them to the man who has none.

When I told people about my revelation, many said I was delusional or crazy, or setting myself up to be taken advantage of. At the time, I was only a small step above poor myself. Most of the poor I encountered I did so while at work out on a smoke break, and most of them first wanted a cigarette. A woman I knew at the time was absolutely appalled that I considered 'passing out cigarettes to bums' a part of my mission work. I did it anyway, and every payday I got 25 dollars in small bills and tucked in the little pouch I carry my rosary in, and if by the next payday I hadn't passed out the whole 25 bucks, I put the remainder in the offering plate. 

I met a lot of people, and some of them, I know, got back on their feet. Others, I know, are still wandering the streets. Most of them, I have no idea what happened to them. One of the biggest things I learned though was that these homeless people got more out of me standing there smoking a cigarette with them than they did out of the couple bucks I gave them. It was the thing they commented on the most - why would someone like me be willing to be seen hanging out with someone like them - and when I told them about my mission, none of them laughed.

I don't for a second pretend that I'm the one that made a difference. Any relief I provided to these people was momentary at best, but it made a big difference in the way I look at the world and people. I stopped lying to bums - if I don't have any cash on me, I just tell them that. If I have cash, but don't feel I can spare it - I tell them that. If I do have cash though, that I can spare, I give it to them, even if I can smell the alcohol on their breath and they tell me they're going to buy another bottle.

My life has evolved a lot since then, and I'm a long way from poor now. I don't encounter as many homeless as I used to, and I only rarely smoke anymore, but those lessons have stuck with me.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Ernie said:


> People don't single me out for random conversations about financial matters, and those who know me wouldn't bring it up.


I seem to be a magnet for random conversations with strangers for what ever reason. I have had people tell me everything from financial troubles to how they used to do cocaine. Not sure why, maybe I just look like someone people can unload on :shrug:



ladycat said:


> People in developed countries tend to forget that they are in the minority, and they are rich by the standards of most of the world.
> 
> Almost everyone in this country, even those we consider as "poor", have a house, a car, a TV, electricity, stove, fridge, a bed, multiple changes of clothes, and so on. This is truly a rich country, and we are luckier than we realise.


Thanks for not totally missing my original point :clap: 

I never said anything about people recieving charity or government assistance yet somehow people construed my original point to mean that I thought everyone on assistance was some how sucking off the system. Oh well..... 

As far as hard core drug addiction goes, I have seen it first hand with a member of my family. I won't go into detail since my personal life is no one's business but based on that experience I think addicts who refuse any help are the nothing more than a bunch of self-serving selfish individuals that care nothing about who they hurt. They only see how much they can use someone and there is nothing that reciprocates back in return.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Heh. You should start cultivating a "don't bother me with your nonsense" appearance. Either that, or start charging them for therapy. 

I don't know that everyone missed your point, but I think that point is blunted somewhat. We in this forum tend to be survivalists and preppers who understand that the only true measure of a successful day is not going to bed hungry. If I'm in a nice house and I had a full meal then the day was a successful one. If I wasn't able to provide my daily calorie requirement for myself or my family then it was an unsuccessful one. And that doesn't change whether I'm in the nice house or huddled in a cave in the remote wilderness. Many of us have realize that material wealth is entirely secondary to physical health and survival. Some of us have low bank accounts but we eat well and own our own property and ask no man for aid. By many tribal standards, I am a wealthy man due to the number of goats I own. By American standards, I'm poor because I live in an old home in the rural countryside and eat and drink homemade and homegrown instead of storebought, or because I drive an old truck instead of the latest model. These are all relative terms and relative standards.

The only universal human standard is meeting those human needs that are required to maintain body temperature. In one climate it may be a palm leaf over my privates and eating fruit as it falls from the trees, while in another climate it may be layers and layers of furs and a day spent hunting caribou. 

As to physical addiction, I have only a vague opinion about such things. I believe that the mind controls the body, not the other way around. We can suffer any privation if we have but the will to do it. If you have an addiction and you cannot summon up the will to break it from within, then pray for help from outside and it will come.


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Re: the charity issue, I believe that I am doing as Christ commanded when I donate to a charity. I try to use wisdom and discernment when choosing the charity. If that charity is mishandling my donation, that's between them & The Boss. At the same time, I have a family member who goes hungry because he takes what little $$ he makes to buy drugs. I will not give him food anymore because I believe I'm only enabling him to continue his self-destructive behavior. That's between me and The Boss.


Everyone should give according to how they're led or according to their own concience.

I'm careful to give only to those who REALLY need the help. I've been burned a few times. It's no end of frustrating to scrape up a bag of groceries for someone, and then later run into them at the corner store buying a case of beer and carton of cigarettes.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

ladycat said:


> It's no end of frustrating to scrape up a bag of groceries for someone, and then later run into them at the corner store buying a case of beer and carton of cigarettes.


It is, indeed. I figure if they have money for non-necessities, then they've made their choice & have no need of my assistance for obtaining necessities. Of course, I guess it depends on one's definition of necessities :stars:.


----------



## unregistered29228 (Jan 9, 2008)

My hubby and I give to charities we feel do the most good for the most needy, based on research of how they use the donations. We give to our church, and also to food pantries and clothing donation boxes at churches. I've also volunteered thousands of hours of my time to deliver meals, pack aid boxes, and help out any way possible. And we pay taxes which go to fund the government welfare system. So I do feel I have a valid opinion on how welfare dollars and charity should be used. 

Ernie, it's a terrible thing that your family was reduced to needing government aid while you were serving your country. But don't get me started on the "benefits" our military gets - VA hospitals are my main gripe, but the list goes on.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Well, I was young and stupid at the time. In the military you're forced to live within a certain distance of the base, regardless of what city, and the housing allowance they give you doesn't always cover the rent you're going to have to pay. I went to the First Sergeant and asked what I was supposed to do and he said "get on food stamps". It lasted 8 months and we were only eligible because I had a baby at the time. 

Looking back with an older and more critical eye, there were dozens of other options I could have undertaken to make up the financial deficit. I was not yet "politically awakened" so to speak and didn't quite realize the ramifications of that action.


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

Ernie said:


> In the military you're forced to live within a certain distance of the base, regardless of what city, and the housing allowance they give you doesn't always cover the rent you're going to have to pay. I went to the First Sergeant and asked what I was supposed to do and he said "get on food stamps". It lasted 8 months and we were only eligible because I had a baby at the time.


It is that kind of stuff that grinds my gears. It amazes me that the government can pay for private military contractors such as Blackwater who are out to make a profit but they can't provide decent enough pay and benefits for the troops.


----------



## Madame (Jan 1, 2003)

Ernie said:


> As to physical addiction, I have only a vague opinion about such things. I believe that the mind controls the body, not the other way around. We can suffer any privation if we have but the will to do it. If you have an addiction and you cannot summon up the will to break it from within, then pray for help from outside and it will come.


I've known ever since I was a teen that I have an addictive personality. Whether it's a chemical imbalance or the result of environment, it's there. I overeat and am 50 pounds overweight. It's a life-long struggle.

However, knowing this, I have avoided smoking, drinking and drugs and a few other things. I know I could easily become addicted, so I simply do without. But I can tell you this, it is far easier to avoid it than to give it up once you are addicted. And yes, if you can't do it alone, you need to get get help if and when you are ready to change.


----------



## turtlehead (Jul 22, 2005)

My husband and I talk about this from time to time (not the charity thing, but the relative poverty thing). 

Americans and other citizens of developed countries are ridiculously wealthy compared to the rest of the world. Most of us (including me) truly don't understand what it's like to have an empty belly and no church, soup kitchen, stranger, or dumpster to look to for a meal. In many countries there IS no food. There IS no water, no electricity, sanitation.

My husband and I talk about how the rich and even the middle class will moan and gnash their teeth if/when TSHTF. Some of them, we think, would commit suicide rather than giving up their carpeting, air conditioning, and entertainment in order to dig in the dirt and butcher animals so they can fill their bellies. 

At the same time there are so very many hungry people who would give anything for fertile soil, ample rainfall, hand tools, and canning equipment. It must blow their minds (the truly poor) at what we Americans consider "suffering".


----------



## Guest (May 30, 2008)

Wind in Her Hair said:


> Amen. My daughter was in line for lunch one day at Medical School, she was chatting with one of her classmates from Nigeria -who supports three orphanages with the pittance he gets from a parttime minimum wage job. The line was long for the use of the microwave and one girl further up the line turned to my daughter and her friend from Nigeria and said "Man, I wish they'd hurry up - I'm STARVING!" The Nigerian looked at her in disbelief and said "But you have food in your hand!"
> 
> amazing
> 
> ...


That sort of thing is why people in some other countries say Americans are spoiled.

And we are.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I don't have a problem with local charity... because there are a few more strings attached... If a family is nothing but a bunch of ne'er do wells, locals won't support the bums. Or at least they wouldn't have in the past... The 'do-gooders' have invaded most every community in the country now, and they care not if people are totally dependent on their handouts... and they don't care if they're enabling dependencies (drug abuse, alchol abuse, gambling, drug manufacturing, etc.)... as long as 'they' get their do-good 'credits'...

With national charities... welfare, foodstamps, (some very very 'iffy' disability payments), there are no controls... the people can be as sorry as they wanna be, and the money still pours in.

The "poorest" people I know are fat, and drive cars... chain smoke cigarettes in between cans of beer... They're on disability... disability to work, that is...why in heavens name should they work, when the govt buys their food, their cigarettes, their beer, pays all the bills...... laziest scoundrels on the planet... the most exercise they get is fighting over the last beer...


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

The bankruptcy law change was bought and paid for by the credit card industry. IF THE CREDIT CARD COMPANIES ONLY GAVE CREDIT TO THOSE WHO QUALIFY FOR CREDIT, THERE WOULD BE MANY, MANY LESS BANKRUPTCIES. Why do credit card companies issue 10 or more credit cards to a widow with $650 a month income? Or to a single mom with $1200 a month income. Its because they are greedy and evil. They know those people will carry a balance and pay interest month after month after month. They know they will get to add late charges and over balance charges and make threatening phone calls to people they should never have issued cards to in the first place. Why do those people take credit cards? Often its to pay for medicine or medical care or food or car repairs all at survival level. When you live on minimial income no matter how careful you are a trip to the doctor and pharmacy or a car repair shop can ruin your budget. It then becomes a choice of food and utilities or medical care or car repairs so you can go to your job. I agree there are many people who mismanage their incomes, but when your income just barely covers your needs it doesn't take much to tip you over the edge. Unfortunately, using credit is a disaster for minimal income budgets because interest and monthly payments only make matters worse. 

Those minimal income people are the ones I'm willing to help not the lower/middle income people who mismanage and refuse to change. I've told a friend who was complaining he didn't have food for his family that every time he lights a cigarette he's stealing food out of his family's mouths. I still gave him food for the kids but he now knows I don't respect his stupid choices.

Last weekend someone in my extended family stole $250 (my vacation money) from my purse. If they had told me they desperately needed money, I might have given them some. However, they chose to steal ALL of my money. Fortunately, we had a full tank of gas so we were able to drive the 200 miles home. When someone misuses welfare benefits that my tax dollars provide it feels sort of the same as when I discovered my money was stolen. I constantly do without all sorts of nice things in order to live within my budget and tithe to my church, give to Salvation Army and Red Cross and it hurts me to see those gifts wasted. For instance, our church gave food to a family where both the husband and wife are heavy smokers. If they choose to smoke instead of buy food, why shouldn't they go hungry? Bad choices = bad results and learning that sooner rather than later would hopefully lead to better choices and better results.


----------



## pickapeppa (Jan 1, 2005)

I'm not going to argue the addiction perspective with anyone who isn't obviously open to seeing that aspect of things. People believe what they want to believe.

It just seems to me there is far more harshness and judgement going on than is helpful. An addict isn't going to change their ways until THEY are ready for it. Being angry and judgemental toward that person for their addiction isn't going to help them change. It's more likely going to put more pressure on them and perpetuate the cycle.

The best help a person could give them is to propel them forward into being ready for the change. If you believe that method is through lack of assistance and support, than that's your belief.

It's not my place to change anyone's mind. I just wanted to offer an alternative viewpoint towards addiction in hopes that someone would see there is more going on than a person 'choosing' to self-indulge over making a sound judgement. The thing that's getting missed here is that a true addiction is a physical *need* for the substance.

There is a big difference between a need and a want. I can see choosing not to help someone who continually makes bad choices with their money. I see it in quite a few people I know. But someone who really does need their addictive substance is not going to function well without it. It's a major problem and needs a lot of support in getting over it, and sometimes medical care, a bed, clothes and food during the withdrawal process, or death can be the result if close medical supervision isn't available 24/7.

IMHO, those people need protection and professional help, not social abuse. The sad thing is, nobody wants to help them with their tax donations, because they made a 'bad choice' many, many years earlier, which more than likely lead to a lifetime of bad choices. In which case, they've paid dearly, day in, day out, living in the hole they stepped in for whatever personal reason (which again, is nobody's business either).

On the military pay issue, it seems that private militaries would be illegal. If the government compensated their soldiers fairly to begin with, would there even be a need for private mercenaries?


----------



## PhilJohnson (Dec 24, 2006)

pickapeppa said:


> I'm not going to argue the addiction perspective with anyone who isn't obviously open to seeing that aspect of things. People believe what they want to believe.


What perspective is there to see, really. I unfortunately seen and experienced first hand what drug addicted person does to one's family. It isn't pretty, in fact it can be nothing less than pure hell at times. If someone is honestly trying to seek help and try to change their life that is one thing. It is something else when someone pimps out their two year old daughter to make drug money. 

I don't care to hear about rationalizing that behavior. I have heard the "victim card" played one time too many by drug addicts. The real victims are their friends, family, and other people whose lives they destroy or make difficult by their own self indulgent choices.

I fully believe there are certain things that make people predisposed to certain behaviors. That however does not give someone any excuse to do anything that may harm others. You could use that argument with child molesters, con artist, and serial killers. They are all addicted to various things, they may even be wired a certain way to do those various behaviors, but that does not mean it gives them an excuse to continue to do those things.



pickapeppa said:


> they've paid dearly, day in, day out, living in the hole they stepped in for whatever personal reason (which again, is nobody's business either).


Sorry but it is my business when their personal choices are affecting my life. Pay dearly? Give me a break. Usually with these people it is their children if they have any that pay the ultimate price. Addicts tend to make the messes that the more responsible people have to pick up.




pickapeppa said:


> It's not my place to change anyone's mind. I just wanted to offer an alternative viewpoint towards addiction in hopes that someone would see there is more going on than a person 'choosing' to self-indulge over making a sound judgement. The thing that's getting missed here is that a true addiction is a physical *need* for the substance.


You don't have the need for something if you have enough brains in the first place not to try it. My family has somewhat of a history of alcoholism, I decided the best way not to become an alcoholic was to never start drinking the stuff. To this day I have never drank anything that had any more alcohol than a bottle of ketchup. 

There are very few people who try drugs who do not at least a general idea that drugs are both harmful to health and addictive. I think in this society there is way to much blaming other things for one's own bad choices. Doesn't matter if the scapegoats are evil mortgage companies or horrible bad brain chemistry, everyone (except those who are mentally incapable) can choose to do something or not do something.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

To a certain extent, I think it's moot. Addiction (and addicts) are symptoms that only affect high-wealth civilizations, and we are soon not to be one. 

Who is going to support an addict, family member or otherwise, when they're already having trouble putting food on the table? When the family unit is forced into a siege mentality, who is going to tolerate the man who isn't trustworthy to stand guard duty or to work diligently in the fields?

Our society created these freeloaders. Every time we reelected an incumbent who had put some socialist program into place, _we_ participated in the problem. Every time we allowed the corporations to pass some portion of their production costs to the taxpayer, _we_ participated in the problem. Every time we didn't balance the budget, or allowed politicians to set up _causus belli_ for their own ends we participated in the problem. 

It's self correcting though. Whether we believe it or not, man is essentially a pack animal. The pack is going to work as a team. Whether that pack becomes an agrarian unit living an isolated and sustainable lifestyle, or whether that pack is a band of armed raiders preying on those isolated agrarians, _nobody_ is going to carry the weight of an adult who isn't willing to work for the good of the pack.

Many of the "addictions" require a full-blown industrial civilization to support them. I can't go out into my fields and grow some plant and turn it into meth. Nor can I manufacture crack cocaine. I can make moonshine or applejack or grow some cannabis, but those aren't likely to become major problems. Alcohol has been part of our civilization since we invented agriculture, and every civilization but ours managed to find a way to prod our "alcoholics" along and make use of them, even if it were only the town drunk to be held up as an example. Cannabis has been heavily ritualized by almost every society who came into contact with it, except ours of course with the massive amounts of free-time that modern citizens share. 

I don't see it as a long term problem facing our civilization, whether it's a social issue or a genetic one. Addiction will become something that grandfathers tell their grandchildren about around the communal firepit, along with "overeating" and diabetes.


----------



## Guest (May 31, 2008)

Ernie said:


> Addiction (and addicts) are symptoms that only affect high-wealth civilizations


Are you kidding??? Addiction is rampant in 2nd and 3rd world countries.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

ladycat said:


> Are you kidding??? Addiction is rampant in 2nd and 3rd world countries.


I've been in Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia before, and I'll argue that many of those third world countries are still a "high wealth civilization" compared to what came before. If your civilization has the ability to create or import industrial pharmaceuticals with highly addictive attributes, then your civilization is not impoverished ... regardless of what your personal level of material wealth may be. So a guy living in a grass hut with a serious cocaine addiction in Guyana is still a member of a high wealth civilization. Despite the fact he is wearing a handtowel and living in filth.

Have you read any of the journals of David Livingstone? They offer fascinating glimpses of primitive civilizations before they made contact with the more industrialized west. He describes some of these tribes as being "addicted" to various plants ("Khat" is one example) which were mostly chewed or eaten. Smoking as the deliberate inhalation of burning vegetable manner was mostly unknown until the tobacco trade became widespread. These tribes who were addicted to these plants did not suffer from an actual physical addiction, but more a malaise or torpor induced by psychological factors. (Livingstone, with the traditional racism of his time, explained that this torpor was mostly due to the genetic inferiority of the observed peoples). Essentially, these people had nothing to fulfill their lives once their daily needs were met (and for primitive peoples this is very easy to do) and so they sat around all day and got stoned. It wasn't a physical issue, but rather a cultural one, and I can't even really say it's a bad idea. 

Primitive cultures have always had an easier time than we do. Look at the book _Stone Age Economics_ by Marshall Sahlins. In it he describes how hunter-gatherer men spend less than 2 hours per day on the average providing for their needs while the women spend no more than 3. This disparity is because in most primitive cultures the woman does all the cooking and tends to the care of the infants. However, consider the comparison with our modern civilization. When was the last time you could get away with working a 2 hour day? A hunter-gatherer picks up his spear at dawn, goes out into the forest with his son and teaches him how to stalk, kill, and butcher a wild jungle rat (or geographically appropriate animal) and then returns to the communal firepit where he spends the rest of the day hanging out with his friends and relatives, maybe gets a little stoned off of some low level pharmaceutical plant, and then spends the evening fornicating and feasting on wild jungle rat. When was the last day any of us had a day that good? I know it's been quite awhile for me. 

Keep in mind also that _Stone Age Economics_ is a study of the division of labor between modern hunter-gatherer tribes, which is to say those tribes who have been pushed off into the more inhospitable climes and regions. Imagine what a paradise the hunter-gatherer tribes were living in when they were in the fertile Ohio or Alabama?


----------



## tickranch (Jan 6, 2007)

pickapeppa said:


> An addict isn't going to change their ways until THEY are ready for it.



Now you are contradicting yourself, or do you also believe a cancer patient can get rid of their cancer when THEY are ready for it?

That physical*need* you mentioned is a PRECIVED need. That is what makes an addict an addict. Nobody has to have nicotine or they will die, they just think they do. 

I'm guessing by your defensiveness and snaky comments that either you yourself are a using addict, or someone close to you is.

Read back through my comments, at no time have I made an angry or judgmental comment about addicts. Being an addict myself and having a few loved ones who are addicts as well, I have a soft spot in my heart for them. I just don't think it does anyone any good to make excuses and rationalize why an addict can't stop their behavior, how they have no control so we must not hold them responsible for their actions. Like Phil said, using that logic then child molesters and rapist, wife beaters and serial killers shouldn't be responsible for their actions either, they can't help what their brain is telling them to do.

Most of the comments in this thread were about smokers and drinkers, two of the easiest addictions to over come. There ARE many free and low cost programs to help and support people who want it.


----------



## unregistered29228 (Jan 9, 2008)

ladycat said:


> Are you kidding??? Addiction is rampant in 2nd and 3rd world countries.


I'll second that....we saw many, many people hooked on alcohol and drugs in third world countries. Palm wine in Africa, opium in the middle east and Asia, sugar cane liquor in South America, hashish in India. And cigarettes in all those countries are dirt cheap, so many men (not so many women) smoke.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Mom_of_Four said:


> I'll second that....we saw many, many people hooked on alcohol and drugs in third world countries. Palm wine in Africa, opium in the middle east and Asia, sugar cane liquor in South America, hashish in India. And cigarettes in all those countries are dirt cheap, so many men (not so many women) smoke.


Marco Polo described the opium addiction so that isn't new. Hashish (the oily resin of the cannabis plant) has been put together for at least a thousand years. The earliest writings of hashish usage come from the monks who accompanied Christian knights in the crusades.

I think what we have here, is a failure to properly define the term "addiction".

I consider addiction to be a crippling need for a substance. A need that is going to overcome all of your survival needs such as food gathering, caring for your children, etc. Nothing found in nature and processed naturally even comes CLOSE to that kind of addictive power. Yeah, some people like alcohol too much and get drunk too often. Yeah, some people smoke too much. But that's NOTHING compared to the power of crack cocaine (which is industrially refined coca plant leaves). It's nothing compared to methamphetamines or any of the other designer drugs.

Cigarette addiction doesn't even come close to a real addiction under those definitions. Yeah, it's hard to quit, but c'mon. You're not going to have sex with an HIV positive pimp in an alleyway to get a pack of Marlboro's, now are you? Even an alcoholic won't sit and starve to death, given the choice between buying food and buying alchohol. 

In every time and every civilization there have been people who overindulged on a substance, but Americans are somewhat ridiculous when it comes to pharmacology. We're a nation that has been in the "War on Drugs" since Ronald Reagan, or technically even since Prohibition if you want to consider alcohol a drug. So what many countries see as a pleasant way to spend an afternoon we tend to look at with American eyes and see as a crippling addiction. By our standards, rural Irishmen who drop into the pub for a couple of pints every night are raging alcoholics. We consider a Brazilian dockworker who sits and chews coca leaves after a long day of work as a cocaine abuser. 

Do you realize that in many Middle Eastern pastries and deserts they use hashish as an ingredient? I've had them. They're DELICIOUS. Ever had a poppy seed muffin? Same plant as what comes from opium. Ever had semientiatka? It's a Russian soup made from hemp seeds, also very delicious. If a Russian ever serves it to you it's a sign of their respect and affection.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Ann-NWIowa said:


> The bankruptcy law change was bought and paid for by the credit card industry. IF THE CREDIT CARD COMPANIES ONLY GAVE CREDIT TO THOSE WHO QUALIFY FOR CREDIT, THERE WOULD BE MANY, MANY LESS BANKRUPTCIES. Why do credit card companies issue 10 or more credit cards to a widow with $650 a month income? Or to a single mom with $1200 a month income. Its because they are greedy and evil. They know those people will carry a balance and pay interest month after month after month. They know they will get to add late charges and over balance charges and make threatening phone calls to people they should never have issued cards to in the first place. Why do those people take credit cards? Often its to pay for medicine or medical care or food or car repairs all at survival level. When you live on minimial income no matter how careful you are a trip to the doctor and pharmacy or a car repair shop can ruin your budget. It then becomes a choice of food and utilities or medical care or car repairs so you can go to your job. I agree there are many people who mismanage their incomes, but when your income just barely covers your needs it doesn't take much to tip you over the edge. Unfortunately, using credit is a disaster for minimal income budgets because interest and monthly payments only make matters worse.
> 
> Those minimal income people are the ones I'm willing to help not the lower/middle income people who mismanage and refuse to change. I've told a friend who was complaining he didn't have food for his family that every time he lights a cigarette he's stealing food out of his family's mouths. I still gave him food for the kids but he now knows I don't respect his stupid choices.
> 
> Last weekend someone in my extended family stole $250 (my vacation money) from my purse. If they had told me they desperately needed money, I might have given them some. However, they chose to steal ALL of my money. Fortunately, we had a full tank of gas so we were able to drive the 200 miles home. When someone misuses welfare benefits that my tax dollars provide it feels sort of the same as when I discovered my money was stolen. I constantly do without all sorts of nice things in order to live within my budget and tithe to my church, give to Salvation Army and Red Cross and it hurts me to see those gifts wasted. For instance, our church gave food to a family where both the husband and wife are heavy smokers. If they choose to smoke instead of buy food, why shouldn't they go hungry? Bad choices = bad results and learning that sooner rather than later would hopefully lead to better choices and better results.


So, should poor people not be allowed credit? If cc companies denied poor people, people on ss, or disabled people credit, wouldn't they be mean and evil and greedy? I can't count how many times a cc has gotten me out of trouble... can't remember a single time it's gotten me into trouble. I remember my parents having to mortgage their farm, for a measly 250$ loan... Arrghhh!!!!

I'm all for bringing back the poor house... and putting every single crack and meth head in existence in prison, forever.

If a person knows bad things will happen if they continue to make bad decisions, let them stop, or suffer the consequences...


----------



## JGex (Dec 27, 2005)

Ernie said:


> As to charity, well, that's the place of religion so I can't separate my religious views from my philosophical ones in this matter. When I pass a homeless man on the street I could easily say, "I'd give him the $5 in my pocket that I don't need but he'll just spend it on booze or drugs." However, that's as morally wrong as if I ignored him completely. Jesus did not command that I give to "only those who deserve it" or "those to whom I see fit to give to". He commanded me to give. If I give up that $5 then I have satisfied my obligation under the Lord and done right. A little treasure has been set aside for me in heaven. If that homeless man then decides to go spend it on booze or drugs then _that is between him and God_ and the sin of it is on his head.


I don't know if you know this or not, but during Katrina Bush enacted some faith-based reimbursement BS to pay churches for their expenses when they offered their services and goods as "charity."

Kind of takes the good will right out of the charity.


----------



## NickyBlade (May 27, 2008)

Army wife here... please don't feel sorry for the enlisted families that are "poor." Military pay is quite sufficient. When you look at pay scales online, please remember that it is "base pay" you are looking at. That is money that the soldier gets AFTER they receive their housing allowance (which will cover rent and utilities completely), their FREE medical insurance, and (depending where they live) cost of living allowance. All the allowances are TAX FREE. The only income that is taxed is the base pay... which makes many of us eligible for extra tax credits at the end of the year too! Basically, a soldier making twelve grand a year is more comparable to a civilian making thirty thousand... The military families that live around us mostly make bad financial decisions, just like in the civilian world. I guess that's my "it hits a nerve" thing! lol. I just have sooo many neighbors with their brand new SUVs, brand new Harley, big screen TV, and they all cry poor mouth... and then I see civilians that believe the military enlisted are under paid because they don't understand base pay and allowances. My husband served ten years, got out, worked in a factory making $18.50 an hour, and came back in the army because we are better off financially... and he'll get to retire at 50 years old. 

Until people can see it was bad decisions that got them to the point they are at, they will continue to make the same financial mistakes over and over... and it will  NEVER  be their fault.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

JGex said:


> I don't know if you know this or not, but during Katrina Bush enacted some faith-based reimbursement BS to pay churches for their expenses when they offered their services and goods as "charity."
> 
> Kind of takes the good will right out of the charity.


I haven't followed too much of it. My firm belief is that the government should not be in the charity business, but that it is each individual's responsibility to do that for themselves.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

NickyBlade said:


> Army wife here... please don't feel sorry for the enlisted families that are "poor." Military pay is quite sufficient. When you look at pay scales online, please remember that it is "base pay" you are looking at. That is money that the soldier gets AFTER they receive their housing allowance (which will cover rent and utilities completely), their FREE medical insurance, and (depending where they live) cost of living allowance. All the allowances are TAX FREE. The only income that is taxed is the base pay... which makes many of us eligible for extra tax credits at the end of the year too! Basically, a soldier making twelve grand a year is more comparable to a civilian making thirty thousand... The military families that live around us mostly make bad financial decisions, just like in the civilian world. I guess that's my "it hits a nerve" thing! lol. I just have sooo many neighbors with their brand new SUVs, brand new Harley, big screen TV, and they all cry poor mouth... and then I see civilians that believe the military enlisted are under paid because they don't understand base pay and allowances. My husband served ten years, got out, worked in a factory making $18.50 an hour, and came back in the army because we are better off financially... and he'll get to retire at 50 years old.
> 
> Until people can see it was bad decisions that got them to the point they are at, they will continue to make the same financial mistakes over and over... and it will  NEVER  be their fault.


When I was stationed in Oklahoma City, the allowances MORE than covered all my additional expenses. When I was stationed in Washington, DC, my allowances as an E-3 barely covered the Metro fare. At some bases, getting into base housing is a waiting list longer than most enlistments. Depending on who is in the White House at the time, cost of living allowances may or may not cover the actual cost of living. In addition, many service members in combat roles had additional restrictions, such as you MUST live within 15 minutes drive of the base. So you don't have the luxury of shopping around too far for affordable housing. You were doing good if you didn't have to park your family next to a crack house. And all bases are not created equal. Some have a simply outstanding commissary where you can buy high-quality groceries at a much lower price. At some stations I was at they didn't even have one. At another (in Alabama) they sold only rotting meat and produce. You could look down through the plastic and see maggots. I'm not feeding that to my family at any price. As an E-4, my final pay grade when I got out of the service, my food and housing allowance totaled an additional $282 per month. Yeah, that's tax-free, but it didn't go very far in a metropolitan area.

The military pay scale is designed for soldiers in the low pay grades to be single, young men. My commanding officer told me once, when I complained about my third deployment to the Middle East in a row, "If the military wanted you to have a family then we would have issued you one." How true that was. Then they wondered why I didn't reenlist. 

It's laughable that you think a soldier making twelve grand is comparable to a civilian making thirty. Simply laughable.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

DJ in WA said:


> Can someone explain to me how we can graduate so many from high school who have learned nothing about handling money or saving? What is more important?


This may have been answered already, I just started reading but my 2 cents is this:

We don't teach kids about money.

I never had any financial training in school. My parents taught me about money and about balancing a check book. The helped me learn about interest and foolishly buying a brand new "cool car" as a 19 year old taught me some real lessons as well.

We should have financial classes as part of schools ciriculum (sp?). I think that lots of children are not being taught by their parents because their parents have no clue themselves. Some one should give them at least the basics and I don't think parents are doing.
JMO


----------



## bjba (Feb 18, 2003)

When I read threads such as this I just shake my head. Seems to me no one in this country knows what poverty is. 
When there are no food stamps, social security, SSI, welfare and etc to wait for 
that is poverty. When a cardboard hovel on the garbage dump is the only home one can hope for that is poverty. When death from exposure or starvation is a real possibility that is poverty. When there is little or no hope that is poverty.
When everyone around you is in the same boat that is poverty. 
Those living at the poverty level in the West are incomprehensibly rich to those in real poverty.


----------



## gideonprime (Oct 17, 2007)

bjba said:


> When I read threads such as this I just shake my head. Seems to me no one in this country knows what poverty is.
> When there are no food stamps, social security, SSI, welfare and etc to wait for
> that is poverty. When a cardboard hovel on the garbage dump is the only home one can hope for that is poverty. When death from exposure or starvation is a real possibility that is poverty. When there is little or no hope that is poverty.
> When everyone around you is in the same boat that is poverty.
> Those living at the poverty level in the West are incomprehensibly rich to those in real poverty.


Well put.


----------



## turtlehead (Jul 22, 2005)

bjba, you said it well.
I think of some of my neighbors in suburban Atlanta and I imagine their reaction if they had to haul water in buckets to cook, clean, and bathe. They'd be apalled, and outraged. They'd want someone to do something, as hauling water is an intolerable way to live!!

Then you look at so many people in the world who would love to have potable water and a bucket in which to haul it.

Our intolerable is so much better than anything they can ever hope for. We are so spoiled.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Actually I know someone on the HT site that has in the time I've known her have to haul in water, use a sawdust toilet, cook on a 2 eye burner, and have a heavy duty extension cord from a power pole as the only electricity. Lived in a non-insulated large storage shed for a year with two growing teen aged girls.
And worked via internet. 
She was getting ahead then due to other's actions lost home, etc.

Most of you know her also....

But, she's preservered and is having better days, and now has help of one working daughter to help pull things back up.

It's been really rough for her, and I'm proud of her.

Angie


----------



## Guest (Jun 2, 2008)

AngieM2 said:


> Actually I know someone on the HT site that has in the time I've known her have to haul in water, use a sawdust toilet, cook on a 2 eye burner, and have a heavy duty extension cord from a power pole as the only electricity. Lived in a non-insulated large storage shed for a year with two growing teen aged girls.
> And worked via internet.
> She was getting ahead then due to other's actions lost home, etc.


I've been in similar situations.

At one point in my life, for a couple of years, I had to walk 2 miles to get water. I had a child's wagon and some empty plastic jugs. I put the plastic jugs in the wagon every couple of days and pulled the wagon to my water source, filled the jugs up, and pulled it back to the shell of a house I was living in for rent free (it wasn't in good enough shape to rent out, so the owner let me stay there for free).


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Ernie said:


> It's laughable that you think a soldier making twelve grand is comparable to a civilian making thirty. Simply laughable.


I have no personal knowledge on this subject.... but aren't most living expenses 'usually' covered, at least for single soldiers? Food, housing, clothing, health care?


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

texican said:


> I have no personal knowledge on this subject.... but aren't most living expenses 'usually' covered, at least for single soldiers? Food, housing, clothing, health care?


Yes, and for servicemembers with families their housing and medical is covered too.


----------



## rkintn (Dec 12, 2002)

Ernie said:


> When I was stationed in Oklahoma City, the allowances MORE than covered all my additional expenses. When I was stationed in Washington, DC, my allowances as an E-3 barely covered the Metro fare. At some bases, getting into base housing is a waiting list longer than most enlistments. Depending on who is in the White House at the time, cost of living allowances may or may not cover the actual cost of living. In addition, many service members in combat roles had additional restrictions, such as you MUST live within 15 minutes drive of the base. So you don't have the luxury of shopping around too far for affordable housing. You were doing good if you didn't have to park your family next to a crack house. And all bases are not created equal. Some have a simply outstanding commissary where you can buy high-quality groceries at a much lower price. At some stations I was at they didn't even have one. At another (in Alabama) they sold only rotting meat and produce. You could look down through the plastic and see maggots. I'm not feeding that to my family at any price. As an E-4, my final pay grade when I got out of the service, my food and housing allowance totaled an additional $282 per month. Yeah, that's tax-free, but it didn't go very far in a metropolitan area.
> 
> The military pay scale is designed for soldiers in the low pay grades to be single, young men. My commanding officer told me once, when I complained about my third deployment to the Middle East in a row, "If the military wanted you to have a family then we would have issued you one." How true that was. Then they wondered why I didn't reenlist.
> 
> It's laughable that you think a soldier making twelve grand is comparable to a civilian making thirty. Simply laughable.



I think these experiences are more the norm..at least it was for me and my ex while in the USAF. It's been 13 years since he was discharged, but seems like all those tax free allowances had to be counted when figuring for the EIC...but I could be mistaken. It has been awhile. The military is definitely a young, single person's game.

*It's laughable that you think a soldier making twelve grand is comparable to a civilian making thirty. Simply laughable.* I couldn't agree more...not to mention, thirty thousand for a family even with healthcare does not go very far.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

rkintn said:


> I think these experiences are more the norm..at least it was for me and my ex while in the USAF. It's been 13 years since he was discharged, but seems like all those tax free allowances had to be counted when figuring for the EIC...but I could be mistaken. It has been awhile. The military is definitely a young, single person's game.
> 
> *It's laughable that you think a soldier making twelve grand is comparable to a civilian making thirty. Simply laughable.* I couldn't agree more...not to mention, thirty thousand for a family even with healthcare does not go very far.


Today the DOD offers a first-time signing bonus that caps at $20k.

The highest Re-enlistment [Selective Re-enlistment Bonus] bonus ever offered to me was $65k. When I retired in 2001, they raised the SRB cap to $90k.

During the second half of my AD career, my salary averaged between $60k to $65k, all tax-free of course.

My E6 salary allowed us to collect apartment buildings, one at each duty station. With the only exception being my last duty station which was in Italia.

I found the military to be a good career field for families who are investment oriented.


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

You were, pretty obviously, a nuke. The rest of the fleet wasn't getting those kind of bonuses or making that kind of money. I was an IC (IC1 SW/AW), and had one of the few NECs for my rate that got any SRB, and my career total roughly $3k. Not very many non-nukes were buying apartment buildings anywhere I was.

I didn't have any complaints about the pay, mind you, I knew what it was when I went in, and although I could have multiplied my salary, no one held a gun to my head to make me to re-enlist. I got out in 2002 and make 3 or 4 times what I did on active duty, and I think of those years as the dues I had to pay to get here.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

NoClue-
No nuc here, sorry, I am a Navigation ET, and I carry a NEC for Law Enforcement. [14 years underwater, 6 years wearing a badge]

I know a few guys who persued follow-on careers. I am rather happy with the pension though. 

I assume that you stayed near NOB [which is not a cheap place to live]; would you have pursued the secondary career, if you had moved to a low cost-of-living area?


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

I spent most of my career on the west coast, although for the last few years I was in DOD commands and was stationed in more unusual places. It just so happened that the job I got was in Norfolk. I worked there for a couple years, then got my current gig in central Virginia.

I didn't actually retire, although I draw a pension. I had some pretty serious injuries and complications of those injuries that made me non-deployable. Honestly, I never thought about not having a follow up career. Working is what I do and I haven't been without a job since I was eleven years old.


----------



## ET1 SS (Oct 22, 2005)

Living and working underwater was fun for a few years; I got out and worked tossing pizza dough and milking goats while attending college fulltime. We saw that a dairy required a serious outside income to support. So after four years and the end of my GI bill benefits, I went back into the Navy. My goal in the Navy was to get the pension and be able to afford homesteading. Therefore our investment portfolio was geared to that goal.

I have known a number of sailors who took their pensions and settled down in small countries, some nations have a very low cost-of-living [Brazil, Peru, guam, PI, Italy, Greece].


----------

