Showing posts with label bootstraps. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bootstraps. Show all posts

LOLOLOLOL Bernie


Apart from the fact that Bernie Sanders is just casually disclosing he's a millionaire now, because he wrote "a best-selling book," as though he didn't spend the entire 2016 primary railing against millionaires (and billionaires!), this is some real bootstraps bullshit: "If you write a best-selling book, you can be a millionaire, too."

OKAY TERRIFIC IDEA BERNIE. A+

Never mind that most people lack the talent to write a best-selling book, and many people who have the talent will never have the opportunity, and plenty of people who have written best-selling books, sometimes a number of them, aren't actually millionaires, because publishing generally doesn't work that way.

This fucking guy. Good grief.

Look, I don't give a fuck if Bernie Sanders is a millionaire. (To be honest, I've always assumed he was a millionaire.) What I do care about a great deal, however, is the fact that he consistently fails to hold himself to the same standards he encourages his supporters to hold other people.

And I have no earthly idea why they continue to move the goalposts to accommodate this guy, who is a transparent phony that continually makes a mockery of their belief in him.

Open Wide...

Victim-Blaming People in Debt Never Changes

Maria LaMagna at MarketWatch: Americans Now Have the Highest Credit-Card Debt in U.S. History.

American consumers just hit a scary milestone.

They now collectively have the most outstanding revolving debt — often summarized as credit card debt — in U.S. history, according to a report Monday released by the Federal Reserve. Americans had $1.021 trillion in outstanding revolving credit in June 2017. This beats the previous record in April 2008, when consumers had a collective $1.02 trillion in outstanding credit revolving credit.

"This record should serve as a wake-up call to Americans to focus on their credit card debt," said Matt Schulz, a senior industry analyst at CreditCards.com, a credit card website. "Even if you feel your debt is manageable right now, know that you could be one unexpected emergency away from real trouble."
What terrific advice! I hope everyone appreciates being advised to "wake up" and "focus" on your credit card debt.

Where can I sign up to be a senior industry analyst earning a fat paycheck dispensing useful financial tips like "get your shit together, losers"?

Early last year, a survey found that 56 percent of Americans had "less than $1,000 in their checking and savings accounts combined," and 25 percent had "less than $100 to their name." The same survey found that 38 percent "would pay less than their full credit card balance" that month.

That is not a country comprised of people who aren't focused on their credit card debt and are unaware that they "could be one unexpected emergency away from real trouble."

To the absolute contrary, their debt and lack of savings is something on which many people find it difficult not to focus, to the exclusion of everything else, including fleeting moments of joy.

But articles which invisibilize the millions of people who are consumed with trying to get out of debt, in order to shame and scold the capricious strawpeople who carelessly rack up escalating debt buying #YOLO hoodies, are a fixture of the financial sector. Here, for example, is a piece I wrote in 2013, about an article shaming people for stealing from their own futures in order to survive in the here and now.

And the reason they are a fixture is because the people who read the financial pages are the corporatists, the robber barons, the union-busters, the predatory lenders, and the legislators whose unfettered avarice is the genesis of this sickening precarity — and it soothes their filthy souls to read fairy tales about their victims' weakness.

Open Wide...

Republicans Are Lying to Sell a Bill That Will Kill People

Yesterday, I noted Greg Sargent's keen observation that Republicans are going to "extraordinary lengths" to conceal that the Affordable Care Act has helped countless people: "If you think about it, pretty much every major lie that [Donald] Trump and Republicans are telling right now to get their repeal-and-replace bill passed is designed to cover it up." Yep.

And oh the lies they are telling as part of that grand obfuscation! Like, for example, this trash:


Republican Senator John Cornyn responded to that tweet thus:


People will buy what they value. Okay. Except surely Cornyn has heard that there are millions of people in this country who struggle occasionally or often or always to meet all of their basic needs.

When someone has to choose between paying rent, paying an insurance premium, or buying a metro card to get to work, because they can't afford all three, something has to give, and it isn't because they don't value all three of those things.

It's not that Cornyn doesn't know this, of course. He knows. But he would simply tell another lie to obfuscate this truth: The lie that any person in the United States can bootstrap their way out of need.

To listen to Cornyn and his reprehensible cronies tell it, anyone who is lacking essentials just isn't working hard enough.

Never mind that Cornyn and his reprehensible cronies are responsible for undercutting labor laws, empowering corporate greed, busting unions, and ignoring the cost to workers of automation for decades, which has made jobs with livable wages ever more scarce.

Lie upon lie upon lie — all to sell a bill that will kill people, and cause an awful lot of unnecessary suffering. Including among countless children, many of whose parents voted for Donald Trump. Whoops.

In related news: Margot Sanger-Katz reports at the New York Times that "Ted Cruz Has an Idea for How to Cover High-Risk Patients." And guess what? It's garbage.

Open Wide...

In the News

Here is some stuff in the news today...

Here's a real shocker: "Trump rejects new adviser's push to make him 'presidential': Donald Trump is bristling at efforts to implement a more conventional presidential campaign strategy, and has expressed misgivings about the political guru behind them, Paul Manafort, for overstepping his bounds, multiple sources close to the campaign tell POLITICO." Gee, who could've guessed?

[Content Note: Class warfare; food insecurity; victim-blaming] "For over five years now, Kansas has served as an economic policy experiment for anti-tax, small-government conservatives. Their lab work is costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars, crippling public service budgets, and making life harder for low-income families without reducing the state's poverty rate at all. With his political star beginning to tarnish, Gov. Sam Brownback (R) came to Washington on Wednesday to discuss his poverty policies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. At one point, the embattled governor justified his policy of forcing people off of food stamps if they can't find a job by likening low-income and jobless people to lazy college students. ...'You probably went to college. You had a lot of papers you had to write. When do most people do their papers in college? My guess is most of you, if I polled you, you would say the night before it was due,' Brownback said. 'That's just kind of who we are as people. And the work requirement is much the same thing.'" NO IT IS NOTHING LIKE THAT AND YOU ARE THE WORST.

[CN: Police misconduct; racism; anti-immigrationism] This is a really important read by Sarah Ryley for ProPublica: "The NYPD Is Running Stings Against Immigrant-Owned Shops, Then Pushing for Warrantless Searches."

[CN: Police misconduct; racism; homophobia; sexual assault] Fucking hell: "Authorities said they have uncovered racist and homophobic text messages sent by and to a former San Francisco police officer who is embroiled in a growing scandal over such messages among law enforcement. Jason Lai has resigned from the San Francisco Police Department following a 2015 investigation that first looked into sexual-assault allegations. ...Lai, a six-year veteran on the force, appeared to have made derogatory comments about numerous ethnic groups as well as gay police officers, according to CNN. ...The messages were discovered during a sexual-assault probe last year amid allegations from a woman who claimed she was on a date with Lai, who was off-duty, when he raped her, according to the Associated Press. Lai told police he could not remember whether they had sex, according to court records. Prosecutors said they did not have enough evidence to charge Lai with sexual assault. ...Lai's attorney, Don Nobles, told CNN this week that the text messages were taken from Lai's personal cellphone and were 'not reflective of who he is' or his abilities as a police officer. 'It's hard to say any of those things in context,' Nobles said, 'but there is context to it.'" Can you imagine the look on my face right now? I BET YOU CAN.

[CN: Homophobia; violence; terrorism] Al Qaeda has taken responsibility for the killings of Xulhaz Mannan and Mahbub Tonoy, two gay activists in Dhaka, Bangladesh: "Ansar-al Islam, the Bangladeshi branch of al Qaeda on the Indian subcontinent, claimed responsibility in a Twitter message Tuesday for what it called a 'blessed attack.' It said the two were killed because they were 'pioneers of practicing and promoting homosexuality in Bangladesh' and were 'working day and night to promote homosexuality … with the help of their masters, the U.S. crusaders and its Indian allies.' U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the [horrific] murders in a statement Monday and said the U.S. government would support Bangladeshi efforts to bring the perpetrators to justice."

[CN: Racism; classism] Welp: "Instant product delivery is seemingly the last service online retailers need to provide to conquer their brick-and-mortar competitors. Amazon’s same-day delivery option hopes to lead the charge. But a report from Bloomberg raises concerns about many of Amazon's black customers being excluded from the service. ...Amazon cites multiple reasons this may be the case, while adamantly denying racial stereotyping as one of them, including a lack of Prime users in certain areas, a disproportionately high number in others, slower expansion of coverage areas, and distance from the nearest product warehouse." But, for example: "The exclusion in Chicago is blamed on the predominantly black South Side being more than two hours away from the nearest production warehouse in Kenosha, WI. However, same-day delivery goes as far southwest as the suburb of Oak Lawn, which is eight miles south of the city and 85 percent white."

[CN: Death] Wow, this was a long time coming: "Ninety-six football fans who died as a result of a crush in the 1989 Hillsborough disaster were unlawfully killed, the inquests have concluded. The jury found match commander Ch Supt David Duckenfield was 'responsible for manslaughter by gross negligence' due to a breach of his duty of care. Police errors also added to a dangerous situation at the FA Cup semi-final. The prime minister said the inquests had provided 'official confirmation' fans were 'utterly blameless.' After a 27-year campaign by victims' families, the behaviour of Liverpool fans was exonerated."

Whooooooops! "The Japanese carmaker Mitsubishi Motors has admitted using fuel-economy testing methods that did not comply with Japanese regulations for 25 years, much longer than previously known. It said on Tuesday that aggressive internal targets may have put pressure on employees to overstate the fuel economy of its vehicles, adding that it would set up an external committee to investigate the matter."

[CN: Whitewashing] "Joaquin Phoenix might play Jesus Christ to Rooney Mara's Mary Magdalene." Sounds about right. *epic eyeroll*

Whoa! "New State for Water Molecules Discovered: Water's just plain old water, right? Not when you trap it inside a tiny channel, it seems, because then it behaves like no other solid, liquid, or gas."

[CN: Animal abuse] I love this (except for the part about the contest to kill stingrays, my god): "Aquarists are given the rare opportunity to learn from a wide variety of animals on a daily basis. The ability to constantly learn from animals in our care provides valuable insight and advances in animal welfare. The Phoenix Zoo has recently been providing significant insight to the intelligence of the Southern cownose stingray. This insight is being used to assist other facilities in breeding and husbandry practices. ...We should never underestimate the intelligence of any animal, nor should we underestimate the fact that every animal is capable of affection. The training sessions with Annie have also created a bond between us. I am always immediately greeted by Annie upon stepping into the tank."

And finally! "From Timid Rescue to DockDog Champ: Meet Sandy the Lab Mix." ♥

Open Wide...

Laura Browder and the Criminalization of Need

[Content Note: Misogynoir; class warfare; criminalization of need.]

In a story reminiscent of Shanesha Taylor's, Laura Browder, a black woman who is a single mom was arrested for "abandoning" her children to go on a job interview. The interview was held at a food court at a mall, and Browder "abandoned" her children at another table in the food court 30 feet away.

Laura Browder said she took her 6-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son with her to a mall for a suddenly scheduled job interview because she didn't have enough time to line up child care. According to Browder, she bought the children lunch at the McDonald's in the food court and sat them at a table approximately 30 feet away and well within sight while she interviewed.

Browder was taken into custody by police when she went to claim her kids, after someone at the mall called police saying the children had been left there crying.

Browder said she was arrested after accepting the job offer, but now worries if the arrest may cause her to lose it.

The woman appeared before a judge who released her and gave her full custody of her children although Child Protective Services is still investigating.

Browder released a statement saying, "This was very unfortunate this happened. I had a interview with a very great company with lots of career growth. I am a college student and mother of two. I would never put my name, background or children in harms way intentionally. I have a promising future ahead of me regardless of what the media tries to portray me as."
What if all the time and attention given to policing mothers (especially black mothers) for leaving their children unattended (or not! 30 FEET AWAY!), policing justfied by an abundance of faulty narratives about strangers who prey on children, was actually dedicated instead toward people who actually harm children, as opposed to the parents mothers who are tasked with the resposibility for protecting their children at all times from any and every potential harm, in what is nothing more than a variation on tasking women with preventing their own rapes, instead of holding rapists accountable?

And what if instead of holding up the Myth of Bootstraps"I never got any help from anyone!"—as the makings of some sort of totally true and definitely amazing success story, we saw it for what it is? Total bullshit. Because not everyone is fortunate enough to have the kind of help that is so reliable it's possible to dismiss it out of hand as not even having been help at all.

I hope that Laura Browder doesn't lose the job she just accepted, and I hope that the investigation into her parenting finds what seems pretty goddamn obvious: That she's a good mom doing the best that she can, and that her best doesn't look too bad at all.

Open Wide...

In the News

Here is some stuff in the news today...

Nine FIFA officials and five corporate executives have been indicted for racketeering, wire fraud, money laundering conspiracies, and other offenses "in connection with the defendants' participation in a 24-year scheme to enrich themselves through the corruption of international soccer. ...The defendants charged in the indictment include high-ranking officials of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the organization responsible for the regulation and promotion of soccer worldwide, as well as leading officials of other soccer governing bodies that operate under the FIFA umbrella. Jeffrey Webb and Jack Warner—the current and former presidents of CONCACAF, the continental confederation under FIFA headquartered in the United States—are among the soccer officials charged with racketeering and bribery offenses. The defendants also include U.S. and South American sports marketing executives who are alleged to have systematically paid and agreed to pay well over $150 million in bribes and kickbacks to obtain lucrative media and marketing rights to international soccer tournaments." Welp.

[Content Note: Extreme weather; death; displacement] The bad weather continues in parts of Texas and Oklahoma, and the National Weather Service has issued a new flash flood warning for Houston while, outside Dallas, people were being evacuated due to the threat of a dam likely to burst. If you've been wondering if some of this flooding has anything to do with a lack of investment in infrastructure, unfortunately it does.

[CN: War on agency; medical malfeasance] This is an incredible piece by Imani Gandy, RH Reality Check's Senior Legal Analyst and all-around terrific person, examining the case of Dr. Byron Calhoun, who lied to a patient about finding a 13-week old fetal skull in her uterus, and how anti-choice doctors manipulate patients in order to bring anti-abortion lawsuits.

[CN: Poverty; class warfare; victim-blaming] Such important research to counter the garbage bootstraps narrative: "What's most striking—and in some circles, controversial—about their work is...their assertion that scarcity affects anyone in its grip. Their argument: qualities often considered part of someone's basic character—impulsive behavior, poor performance in school, poor financial decisions—may in fact be the products of a pervasive feeling of scarcity. And when that feeling is constant, as it is for people mired in poverty, it captures and compromises the mind. This is one of scarcity's most insidious effects, they argue: creating mindsets that rarely consider long-term best interests. 'To put it bluntly,' says Mullainathan, 'if I made you poor tomorrow, you'd probably start behaving in many of the same ways we associate with poor people.' ...Typically, he explains, when the poor remain stuck in the grip of poverty, policymakers tend to ask what's wrong with them, pointing to a lack of personal motivation or ability. Rarely, he continues, do we as policymakers ask, 'What is it about this situation that is enabling this failure?'"

[CN: Racism; class warfare] Another example of using municipal violations to police and exploit a community: "Among the things that will be 'closely monitored' through the spring and summer, according to a newsletter that recently went out to residents: Pants worn too low or grass grown too high. Children riding bikes without helmets. Barbecue pits or toys in front yards. Basketball hoops in the streets. There's no loitering—described in city code as 'the concept of spending time idly' or 'the colloquial expression hanging around.' And, despite a citywide 20 mph speed limit, there's no playing or walking in the street."

[CN: Police brutality; racism] Six months before the US Justice Department made a deal with Cleveland Police to improve their abusive policing, a similar deal was made with Albuquerque: "But more than six months after Albuquerque and the DoJ announced they had reached a deal, and 13 months after the federal agency issued their damning report, activists caution that reforms have not been finalised and a fundamental shift in the police department's culture remains a long way off."

I hope you're sitting down, because here is some exciting presidential primary news: Rick Santorum has announced that he's going to announce that he's running for president again!

In other presidential primary news, Bernie Sanders wants guaranteed vacation time for every US worker. Good idea!

Have y'all been watching the new Netflix series Grace and Frankie, starring Lily Tomlin and Jane Fonda? If not, you should check it out! And then celebrate that it's already been given a second season. Woohoo!

And finally! Nico the adopted shelter dog had no training in rescue, but knew exactly what to do when he heard two people caught in a riptide yelling for help. GOOD DOG!

Open Wide...

Conceding the Narrative

[Content Note: Classism.]

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio have co-authored an op-ed for the Washington Post on "How to Revive the American Dream," in which they lay out some very solid and necessary proposals for mitigating the increasingly cavernous class divide in the US.

However, here is one word that never appears a single time in the piece: Poverty. And here is how the piece ends:

Rebuilding our middle class won't be easy, but real change rarely is. It's time to be bold.

The American Dream depends on it.
I really hate everything about that. And the reason I hate it is because it concedes two grossly destructive conservative narratives.

First: The American Dream is a garbage fantasy used to deny the existence of privilege and rooted deeply in the myth of bootstraps. Warren and de Blasio are right as rain that "it's time to be bold," and they should boldly throw the entire concept of the American Dream in a dumpster where it belongs.

Second: The disproportionate focus on the middle class implicitly, even if unintentionally, upholds conservative narratives about people in poverty being lazy moochers who just aren't working hard enough to "lift themselves" out of poverty. By constantly focusing on the middle class, rather than a truly bottom-up model of social and economic justice which centers people in poverty, politicians tacitly suggest that a permanent underclass is acceptable.

I'm sure there's some strategist somewhere being paid obscene amounts of money to tell Democrats that focusing on the middle class plays well in Peoria, and who would tell me for free that I just don't understand how politics works so STFU, but progressives can do better than this. And we must.

Open Wide...

Numbers of the Day

[Content Note: Class warfare.]

Seven and seventy:

A new Pew Research Center analysis of wealth finds the gap between America's upper-income and middle-income families has reached its highest level on record. In 2013, the median wealth of the nation's upper-income families ($639,400) was nearly seven times the median wealth of middle-income families ($96,500), the widest wealth gap seen in 30 years when the Federal Reserve began collecting these data.

In addition, America's upper-income families have a median net worth that is nearly 70 times that of the country's lower-income families, also the widest wealth gap between these families in 30 years.
These are, of course, averages, and do not reflect that the disparities are even more glaring when adjusted for privilege or the lack thereof.

This is not justice. The people who keep collecting more and more, hoarding vast amounts of wealth, cannot keep pretending that they "deserve" it on the basis of "hard work." They can't keep pretending that they're just generating more wealth, instead of stealing it from the lower classes.

Well, they can, but the situation is untenable. This system can't be sustained; it will collapse under the weight of need or revolution.

[Related Reading: The Haves and the Have-Nots, Wealth Gap, Quote of the Day, $10.10, Number of the Day, This Is What Privilege Looks Like, Speaking of Racism.]

Open Wide...

A Story About Bootstraps

[Content Note: Privilege.]

Politicians love stories about people who "came from nothing" and Made It Big in America. It doesn't matter if it's the Republican National Convention or a Democratic gubernatorial debate or any venue at all where a politician can name some Average American zie met on the Campaign Trail who has the Greatest Story about Achieving the American Dream.

We hear these stories in US politics all the time.

The inner city kid who grew up to be a war hero. The single teen mom who now runs her own successful business. The immigrant who came here with nothing and now owns the restaurant where he started as a busboy.

We love movies about people who "overcame." We love stories about Exceptional People who "rose above" their meager circumstances.

And people—especially people who have a vested interest in the fairy tale of the American Dream, particularly as it is used to deny the existence of privilege—love to tell these sorts of stories about themselves. Created narratives, carefully edited narratives, about how they Made It without any help from anyone.

It's that carefully edited thing that's always the kicker.

And I'm not even talking about failing to mention that it matters if you were the beneficiary of government programs that made sure you had electricity, or mail, or passable roads, or clean drinking water, or food, or shelter, or healthcare, or a loan.

We all tend to leave that stuff out, even though we shouldn't.

I'm talking about leaving out details that aren't just details. To shape your struggle into a narrative of bootstraps, when maybe it wasn't exactly so.

Recently, Iain and I were joking about what his personal narrative would be if he ran for office in the US. [These details shared with his permission.] It would be an inspiring tale of a poor, homeless, unemployed immigrant who arrived in America with $50 to his name, one suitcase, and the clothes on his back; who never took a hand-out from anyone.

"And now, just 12 years later, here I stand before you as a homeowner, a successful businessman, and YOUR CANDIDATE FOR THE UNITED STATES SENATE!" Wild cheers and applause!

What a success! It's truly the American Dream! If he can do it, anyone can!

And the thing is? It's technically true.

Iain really did arrive in the States with $50 to his name, one suitcase, and the clothes on his back. He was poor and homeless and unemployed. He never "took a hand-out." That is all 100% true.

But here are a few other relevant details:

He's male; he's white; he's straight; he's cisgender; he has no visible disabilities; he is well educated.

He immigrated from Scotland, a country where English was his first language and which makes him, in the prejudiced language of immigrant-ranking, an "ex-pat" rather than an "immigrant."

He had more "stuff," but he couldn't be bothered to ship it, so he just left it behind.

He came to the US on a fiancee visa.

He was guaranteed to get a work visa as soon as we were married and he was eligible to apply for one.

He was only "homeless" because I'd sold my home before moving to Scotland for a short time, but we had people with whom to stay in the States until we got a new place. He had a built-in support network of people willing to be there for him, because he was my partner, in his new country.

I was able to quit my job and move there because my parents volunteered to sponsor him. (That is, they promised to the government to cover his expenses if necessary, so he would not take US welfare.) They didn't ultimately have to pay his living expenses, but the fact that they were willing to commit to the possibility indicates how much support he had moving here.

Because I'd sold my home, I had money to use to cover our expenses until we both found work. (And he found work before I did.)

In a tough job market, his brogue made him memorable and interesting to potential employers. He stood out from the crowd as an immigrant, in the best possible way.

Et cetera.

Pointing these things out, of course, is not to take anything away from the fact that Iain is an ambitious, hard-working, talented person. And he has not led a charmed life. It's merely to acknowledge that he has many privileges that other ambitious, hard-working, talented people who have also struggled don't have.

You know, all the details that get left out of stories about bootstrapping one's way to the American Dream.

White USians (particularly, though not exclusively and not universally) subscribe fully and uncritically to the narrative of bootstraps and the promise of the American Dream and the myth of opportunity. Anyone (except oneself, naturally) who fails to achieve, including other whites who had the terrible sense to be born poor, with disabilities, to abusive parents, and/or in some other potentially success trajectory-fucking circumstance, is personally blamed for their lot and—even in spite of obvious innate incompatibilities with the unjust, inflexible, kyriarchal, privilege-rewarding system by which we're meant to achieve "success" as if it's a level playing field—is suspected, and frequently openly accused, of simply failing to work hard enough.

If there is one person born to poverty, one person with disabilities, one person who has survived profound abuse, who can be held up as an example of achievement, then everyone else is failing to thrive. Even as we devour barfinating narratives of triumph over tragic circumstances, we pretend that terrible beginnings don't really matter, except insomuch as they make great first acts for Sandra Bullock Oscar vehicles.

This intractable belief in bootstraps manifests the bias detailed above because it encourages the lie that history doesn't matter. And neither does present bias. It encourages the lie that every life happens in a fucking void.

Except, of course, when it suits us to judge an individual by our prejudices about an entire class to which they belong.

When you're a non-privileged person, you're as bad as the worst conceivable member of a shared demographic, and only as good as your own personal achievement.

That is the gross underbelly of American Individualism. Its story only really works for privileged people, among whose privileges include being seen as an individual, whether they fail or succeed.

And that is why the American Dream, and all its narratives of bootstraps and hard work and equal opportunity, is conservative horseshit: The American Dream is not, and has never been, that we collectively eradicate poverty, achieve meaningful and lasting social justice, and celebrate our shared success, but that each of us as individuals would achieve some sort of perfect destiny of wealth, health, and security.

And fuck everyone who doesn't. They're just lazy.

All of this, all of it, is underwritten by curated narratives about success, about the people who succeed within a very specific model. Tales told by the victors.

Victors who want—and need—to claim that they never had any help from anyone. Because, if they had, their admonishments to people without their privileges to pull themselves up by their bootstraps would be readily seen for the vile cruelty it is.

We should view with suspicion stories of personal success via bootstraps. We should view critically their lack of detail. They exist in service to an agenda.

Gruesomely, to an agenda explicitly designed to make the individual success being exalted a virtual impossibility for anyone who's truly got nothing but their bootstraps.

Open Wide...

Hungry. For Change, Sure, But Also Just Hungry.

[Content Note: Food insecurity; poverty; class warfare.]

Yesterday, President Obama gave an address on the state of the US economy at Northwestern University, just outside Chicago. Leading into the midterm elections, clearly his focus was to highlight the gains the economy has made and optimism that the work yet to be done is underway. And that's certainly the tone he struck, with the usual emphasis on the need for a thriving middle class:

So it is indisputable that our economy is stronger today than when I took office. By every economic measure, we are better off now than we were when I took office. At the same time, it's also indisputable that millions of Americans don't yet feel enough of the benefits of a growing economy where it matters most — and that's in their own lives.

And these truths aren't incompatible. Our broader economy in the aggregate has come a long way, but the gains of recovery are not yet broadly shared — or at least not broadly shared enough. We can see that homes in our communities are selling for more money, and that the stock market has doubled, and maybe the neighbors have new health care or a car fresh off an American assembly line. And these are all good things. But the stress that families feel — that's real, too. It's still harder than it should be to pay the bills and to put away some money. Even when you're working your tail off, it's harder than it should be to get ahead.

And this isn't just a hangover from the Great Recession. I've always said that recovering from the crisis of 2008 was our first order of business, but I also said that our economy wouldn't be truly healthy until we reverse the much longer and profound erosion of middle-class jobs and incomes.

So here's our challenge. We're creating more jobs at a steady pace. We've got a recovering housing market, a revitalized manufacturing sector — two things that are critical to middle-class success. We've also begun to see some modest wage growth in recent months. All of that has gotten the economy rolling again, despite the fact that the economies of many other countries around the world are softening. But as Americans, we measure our success by something more than our GDP, or a jobs report. We measure it by whether our jobs provide meaningful work that give people a sense of purpose, and whether it allows folks to take care of their families. And too many families still work too many hours with too little to show for it. Job growth could be so much faster and wages could be going up faster if we made some better decisions going forward with the help of Congress. So our task now is to harness the momentum that is real, that does exist, and make sure that we accelerate that momentum, that the economy grows and jobs grow and wages grow. That's our challenge.

When the typical family isn't bringing home any more than it did in 1997, then that means it's harder for middle-class Americans to climb the ladder of success. It means that it's harder for poor Americans to grab hold of the ladder into the middle class. That's not what America is supposed to be about. It offends the very essence of who we are. Because if being an American means anything, it means we believe that even if we're born with nothing — regardless of our circumstances, a last name, whether we were wealthy, whether our parents were advantaged — no matter what our circumstances, with hard work we can change our lives, and then our kids can too.

And that's about more than just fairness. It's more than just the idea of what America is about. When middle-class families can't afford to buy the goods or services our businesses sell, it actually makes it harder for our economy to grow. Our economy cannot truly succeed if we're stuck in a winner-take-all system where a shrinking few do very well while a growing many are struggling to get by. Historically, our economic greatness rests on a simple principle: When the middle class thrives, and when people can work hard to get into the middle class, then America thrives. And when it doesn't, America doesn't.

This is going to be a central challenge of our times. We have to make our economy work for every working American. And every policy I pursue as President is aimed at answering that challenge.
Lots of good stuff there, and also lots of the usual bootstraps bullshit that imagines it's possible for people in poverty to move into the middle class if only they really want to and try hard enough, which justifies policy that's really wealth redistribution upwards but pitched as maintaining the middle class, rather than policy centered on lifting people out of poverty.

The President gives lip service to the idea that the recovery isn't broad enough, but doesn't say flatly that the recovery has "bypassed the majority of American households" and that "future growth is likely to be lopsided, because the foundation for broad prosperity is arguably the weakest it has been since World War II." That is the conversation we refuse to have—because neither party is truly interested in a bottom-up economic policy.

We'll still "debate" the efficacy of trickle-down economics as though it hasn't been resoundingly discredited, but we won't even whisper the suggestion that what we truly need is trickle-up economics.

Because fates forfend the most privileged people in the country just be expected to maintain while we focus for a minute on people who have nothing.

Anyway.

On the same day the President gave this address, the findings of a new study by Feeding Indiana's Hungry and Feeding America were published. Just over the state border in Indiana from where the President was speaking, "1 in 6 Hoosiers, or an estimated 1.1 million people in Indiana, turn to food pantries and meal service programs to feed themselves and their families."

1 in 6.

And, contrary to conservative narratives about lazy moochers who don't want to work: A majority of the households (61%) in Indiana served by Indiana agencies and programs "have at least one member who has been employed in the past year," and among all served households where someone is employed, "the person with the longest employment duration is more likely to be employed full-time."

In fact, 59% of households with an employed person using social services include at least one full-time worker. And they still cannot make ends meet.
"The results of this study show us that the face of hunger is one we would recognize in every Hoosier community," said Emily Weikert Bryant, Executive Director of Feeding Indiana's Hungry. "Many of our neighbors who are seeking food assistance have jobs, raise families, work toward education and struggle with health problems, like all of us. Too often, our clients also have to make unimaginable choices to get enough food for their families."
Here are some statistics about those choices:

* 85% of households report purchasing inexpensive, unhealthy [for them] food because they could not afford healthier [for them] options.

* 64% households have a member with high blood pressure.

* 34% of households include a member with diabetes.

* 77% of households report having to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care.

* 45% of these households are making that choice every month.

* 77% report choosing between paying for food and paying for utilities.

* 39% of these households are making that choice every month.

* 78% report making choices between paying for food and paying for transportation.

* 44% of these households are making that choice every month.

* 63% report choosing between paying for food and paying for housing.

* 31% of these households are making that choice every month.

* 40% report choosing between paying for food and paying for education expenses.

* 19% of these households are making that choice every month.

* 60% of households reported using three or more coping strategies for getting enough food in the past 12 months, including but not limited to: Eating food past the expiration date (62%); purchasing inexpensive, unhealthy food (85%); pawning or selling personal property (43%); watering down food or drinks (35%).

The truth is, we can talk in civil tones about abstract policy positions, and we can debate tax cuts vs. tax increases, and we can use anodyne language to talk about "the recovery," and we blather on endlessly about various ideas to strengthen the economy, but, at a certain point, we've just got to start feeding people.

We are the wealthiest nation on the planet, and we aren't feeding people.

I say, loudly and often, that Republicans think people aren't entitled to food, and they don't. I'm not sure Democrats do, either. Not really. Because our Democratic president is still talking about how America gives everyone an opportunity to succeed, while there are millions of people watering down food to survive.

Open Wide...

Two Americas

[Content Note: Class warfare; bootstraps rhetoric.]

Or what feels, truly, like two different planets, sometimes. The planet on which people live who understand the reality of being unemployed in the US, and the planet on which Republicans live. Paul Krugman:

Last week John Boehner, the speaker of the House, explained to an audience at the American Enterprise Institute what's holding back employment in America: laziness. People, he said, have "this idea" that "I really don't have to work. I don't really want to do this. I think I'd rather just sit around." Holy 47 percent, Batman!

It's hardly the first time a prominent conservative has said something along these lines. Ever since a financial crisis plunged us into recession it has been a nonstop refrain on the right that the unemployed aren't trying hard enough, that they are taking it easy thanks to generous unemployment benefits, which are constantly characterized as "paying people not to work." And the urge to blame the victims of a depressed economy has proved impervious to logic and evidence.

But it's still amazing — and revealing — to hear this line being repeated now. For the blame-the-victim crowd has gotten everything it wanted: Benefits, especially for the long-term unemployed, have been slashed or eliminated.

...I don't know how many people realize just how successful the campaign against any kind of relief for those who can't find jobs has been. But it's a striking picture. ...[E]xtended benefits for the long-term unemployed have been eliminated — and in some states the duration of benefits has been slashed even further.

The result is that most of the unemployed have been cut off. Only 26 percent of jobless Americans are receiving any kind of unemployment benefit, the lowest level in many decades. The total value of unemployment benefits is less than 0.25 percent of G.D.P., half what it was in 2003, when the unemployment rate was roughly the same as it is now. It's not hyperbole to say that America has abandoned its out-of-work citizens.
I strongly recommend reading the whole thing.

The people who constantly bray this fairy tale of lazy moochers who cruise through life on government benefits are so out of touch with multiple realities—how difficult it is to secure long-term payments (e.g. disability); how difficult it is to live on government welfare; how many people who desperately need welfare aren't getting it because they don't qualify; how many people are desperate for work they can do; how many places in the US simply don't have enough jobs with livable wages to support the community anymore—that their ignorance, willful or otherwise, would be laughable if it weren't so unfathomably harmful.

And then there is this: Poverty is extremely difficult. It is stressful, demoralizing, exhausting. Poverty is not for lazy people. No one is getting rich, or even living a carefree life, on the paltry sums that constitute government benefits in the US.

The only lazy people in this discussion are the ones who repeat ad nauseam the reprehensible lie that unemployed people are shiftless takers, because that's a hell of a lot easier than just admitting their theory that making life difficult for unemployed people will force them to "get a job" is rank garbage.

Like the rest of their fantastical contentions underwriting their contemptible policies.

[Related Reading: $10.10.]

Open Wide...

Number of the Day

[Content Note: Poverty; class warfare.]

36%: The percentage of USians 18 or older who have no retirement savings, according to a survey.

More than a third of American adults have no retirement savings, including 14% of those 65 years of age or older, according to a new study released Monday.

The low savings rate for people at or approaching retirement age is alarming, said Greg McBride, chief financial analyst for Bankrate.com, which conducted the survey.

About a quarter -- 26% -- of those age 50 to 64 haven't started saving for retirement, the survey said; the figure was 33% of people who are 30- to 49-years-old.

Overall, 36% of those 18 years or older have not started saving for retirement, according to the survey of 1,003 adults.

"They still have time to start, but they still have to save so much as a percentage of their income to make up for the years they weren't saving that it puts them in a tough spot," McBride said.

..."There's no better time than the present to start saving for retirement," he said. "This isn't money that's gone. You've just put it aside for your future self instead of spending it on your present self."
I love the idea that all those people could be saving for retirement, but are simply choosing not to.

And, sure, that's probably true for some people. But I suspect that the vast majority of people who have no retirement savings aren't being capricious as much as they are using that money for things they need right now.

There's also the little issue of people who used to have retirement savings, but had to raid it after some sort of emergency or crisis. How many people used to have retirement savings until they needed it to pay medical pills, or come up with balloon mortgage payments, or buy basic necessities after being laid off?

I mean, if I'd had a choice between not being laid off and continuing to save for my retirement and being laid off and having to decimate my savings to live, I can tell you which one I would have chosen.

[Related Reading: Culprits.]

Open Wide...

Rick Perry: Always Terrible. All the Time.

[Content Note: Homophobia; disablism.]

After saying last week that homosexuality is like alcoholism, Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry was challenged by CNBC anchor Joe Kernan to explain his comment:

"Whether or not you feel compelled to follow a particular lifestyle or not, you have the ability to decide not to do that," Perry said Wednesday at an event in San Francisco. "I may have the genetic coding that I'm inclined to be an alcoholic, but I have the desire not to do that, and I look at the homosexual issue the same way."

...Kernan then tried to get Perry to confront the psychological implications of his comment. The Texas Republican Party had endorsed "reparative therapy" for gays at its annual convention days before Perry made his disputed comment.

"In terms of changing the behavior of someone, you wouldn't think that someone who's heterosexual that you couldn't change them into a homosexual, or if someone who's homosexual, you don't think there should be therapy to change them into a heterosexual?" Kernan asked.

"I don't know," Perry responded. "The fact is we'll leave that to the psychologists and the doctors."

"Well, the psychologists, they've already weighed in," Kernan shot back. "They've dismissed the idea that sexual orientation is a mental disorder."

..."I don't necessarily condone that lifestyle. I don't condemn it, either," Perry concluded.
See, here's the thing: Sexuality isn't a "lifestyle." For most people, it's not a choice; for some people, it is. Either way, it's not a "lifestyle." And neither is alcoholism, which is a disease.

This is just another iteration of conservatives' bootstraps bullshit: If only you try hard enough, you can accomplish anything! Perry is saying that it's his willpower ("I have the desire not to do that") which determines his sexual orientation and health. Which is utter claptrap.

Everything always comes down to "hard work," because it's the only way to elide the institutional privilege that confers unquantifiable advantages, and the only way to elide the luck, or lack thereof, that shapes all of our lives.

What Perry is saying is reprehensible—first and foremost because it denies LGB people the right to be authorities on their own lives, denies them the expertise of their own lived experiences. And secondly because it's just more horseshit about bootstraps, that flattens the human experience and judges each life according to a metric defined by the most privileged among us.

Fuck off, Rick Perry—and take your toxic ideology with you.

Open Wide...

Quote of the Day

[Content Note: Privilege; bootstraps.]

"Believing in meritocracy is a manifestation of privilege. 'Merit' doesn't exist a priori. It's evaluated by people in power, according to expectations and standards set by people in power. How you gonna evaluate 'merit' when one kid has tutors and ballet, and another is going to school hungry? And how 'equal' are their schools? How much 'merit' does it take to just get through every day as a Black person in a viciously anti-Black world? People with privilege get everything handed to them on a platter from childhood—and get told they 'earned' it through their 'merit.' And when you're only surrounded by other people of privilege, that privilege becomes invisible, so believing in 'merit' happens."Dr. Jane Chi, on Twitter this morning, addressing the garbage memes about "merit" so beloved by people who oppose affirmative action.

'Merit' doesn't exist a priori. Succinct, brilliant, perfect.

[Shared in this space with Dr. Jane Chi's permission.]

Open Wide...

Working Poor and Mendacious Narratives

[Content Note: Class warfare; food insecurity.]

Anyone who has been paying attention to the world around them and the people in it almost certainly already knows this, and anyone who is resistant to facts that might undermine their self-aggrandizing cruelty won't fucking care, but here it is anyway:

A report from Feeding America on food insecurity and food costs in the United States sheds new light on the real targets of the conservative media's crusade against food stamps.

...[The reality is] that almost 41% of recipients live in a household with earnings, and according to the USDA program fraud is below one cent on the dollar.

Feeding America's report on the county and congressional district level food insecurity and county food costs in the United States paints a startlingly different picture of the food insecure than the one the right-wing media typically pushes. Feeding America found that more than 47 million people in the United States are food-insecure, meaning that they have "limited or uncertain access to adequate food," and that 16 million of those people are children. On average, about 71% of the food-insecure throughout the country fall below 185% of the poverty line, making them eligible to receive SNAP benefits.
I know I'm the brokenest of all the broken records that have ever been broken, but the incessant yammering about "bootstraps" and "takers" and "moochers" and people who can't be "convinced" to "take personal responsibility and care for their lives" is FUCKING GARBAGE.

Indecent, dishonest, execrable, inexcusable garbage.

I have nothing but voluminous contempt for anyone who barfs up this resoundingly discredited garbage, who scapegoats working people who don't have enough to eat as lazy, system-gaming scoundrels, in a futile bid to mask their reprehensible agenda of "reducing dependence on government"—a gross euphemism for vile social Darwinism justified by bullshit beliefs about bootstraps and fairy tales about how people earn what they deserve, designed to ensure that the wealthiest fuckers in the wealthiest nation don't have to pay a penny more in taxes in order that the workers they exploit to become billionaires might have enough food to stay alive and drag their exhausted, malnourished asses to jobs that won't pay them a livable wage, because profits are more important than people.

This isn't, and will never be, about whether people are working hard enough.

This is about the fact that Republicans think people aren't entitled to food. And they're too cowardly to say it plainly. So they tell lies about lazy people who game the system—a breathtaking bit of projection that would be laughable, if only it weren't so fucking tragic.

Open Wide...

Two Facts

[Content Note: Privilege; bootstraps.]

1. David Brooks is still being employed by the New York Times to write a garbage column.

2. This week's garbage column is like a trophy to garbage.

Under the headline "The Employer's Creed," David Brooks metes out advice to employers about who they should and shouldn't be hiring. Now, generally speaking, I agree with the advice that the perfect résumé does not axiomatically translate into the perfect employee, and I enthusiastically advocate abandoning the idea that someone with a less traditional résumé should be reflexively rejected. Sometimes people with the most interesting lives and experiences have the least impressive résumés.

But. BUT. Bear in mind that David Brooks has long been a proponent of BOOTSTRAPS! and a denier of the advantages of privilege when you read this shit:

Bias hiring decisions against perfectionists. If you work in a white-collar sector that attracts highly educated job applicants, you've probably been flooded with résumés from people who are not so much human beings as perfect avatars of success. They got 3.8 grade-point averages in high school and college. They served in the cliché leadership positions on campus. They got all the perfect consultant/investment bank internships. During off-hours they distributed bed nets in Zambia and dug wells in Peru.

When you read these résumés, you have two thoughts. First, this applicant is awesome. Second, there's something completely flavorless here. This person has followed the cookie-cutter formula for what it means to be successful and you actually have no clue what the person is really like except for a high talent for social conformity. Either they have no desire to chart out an original life course or lack the courage to do so. Shy away from such people.
So, basically, now anyone who precisely follows the model that "lifting yourself up by the bootstraps" has always required (within the confines of Corporate America) is either unoriginal or cowardly. Perfect.

That's maybe the kind of thing that makes some sort of sense to say in the brainpan of someone who pictures "middle class, able-bodied, thin, white, cishet male" as the default human job applicant, but it starts making a lot less sense when you take into consideration that pool of applicants may include, as but a few examples:

People who are not able-bodied, thin, white, cisgender, straight, and/or male, for whom approaching a vanilla "perfection" has been their only means of being competitive.

People who are first-generation travelers through the middle-class process, for whom the "cookie-cutter" model may be the only model to which they have access, simply by virtue of its ubiquity, as opposed to people whose parents and other relatives have provided multiple models of navigating middle-class access to them.

People with names that indicate a background, ethnicity, religious affiliation, etc., prejudiced responses to which have "othered" them throughout their lives, who have learned that conformity in other ways is required to balance their very names.

People who have overcome learning disabilities, social anxiety, illness, neglect, oppression, and/or other limitations to achieve what they've long been told (by people like David Brooks) is the right résumé of accomplishments to achieve success, whose arrival at this "boring" result is, in fact, indicative of a bravery paper cannot convey.

That's not a comprehensive list.

I'm sure David Brooks would balk at the suggestion that he seems to be moving the goalposts, now that people from marginalized classes are scoring goals in larger numbers. But if he doesn't like that accusation, then perhaps he should stop writing garbage that invites it.

[H/T to Shaker Mod aforalpha.]

Open Wide...

This Is Not a Solution; This Is the Problem.

[Content Note: Misogynoir; class warfare; systemic abuse.]

The Myth of Bootstraps goes something like this: I never got any help from anyone. I achieved my American Dream all on my own, through hard work. I got an education, I saved my money, I worked hard, I took risks, and I never complained or blamed anyone else when I failed, and every time I fell, I picked myself up by my bootstraps and just worked even harder. No one helped me.

This is almost always a lie.

There are vanishingly few people who have never had help from anyone—who never had family members who helped them, or friends, or colleagues, or teachers.

Who never benefited from government programs that made sure they had electricity, or mail, or passable roads, or clean drinking water, or food, or shelter, or healthcare, or a loan.

Who never had any kind of privilege from which they benefited, even if they didn't actively try to trade on it.

Who never had an opportunity they saw as luck which was really someone, somewhere, making a decision that benefited them.

Who never had friends to help them move, so they didn't have to pay for movers. Who never inherited a couch, so they didn't have to pay for a couch. Who never got hand-me-down clothes from a cousin, so their parents could afford piano lessons. Who never had shoes that fit and weren't leaky, when the kid down the street didn't.

Most, maybe all, of the people who say they never got any help from anyone are taking a lot of help for granted.

They imagine that everyone has the same basic foundations that they had—and, if you point out to them that these kids over here live in an area rife with environmental pollutants that have been shown to affect growth or brain function or breathing capacity, they will simply sniff with indifference and declare that those things don't matter. That government regulations which protect some living spaces and abandon others to poisons isn't help.

The government giving you money to eat is a hand-out. The government giving you regulations that protect the air you breathe is, at best, nothing of value—and, at worst, a job-killing regulation that impedes the success of people who want to get rich dumping toxins into the ground where people getting hand-outs live.

When people really don't have any help from anyone, it doesn't look like gold-plated car elevators. It looks like this: Arizona Mother Arrested after Leaving Kids in Car During Job Interview.

Shanesha Taylor is a homeless, single mother of 2 children, who was arrested for child abuse this week. Taylor left her children, ages 6 and 2 years old, in her Dodge Durango while she attended a job interview in Scottsdale, Arizona.

A passerby found the children in the car, with the engine turned off and the windows cracked open. Once Taylor returned to the car, 45 minutes later, she informed the police officer that she did not have a babysitter for her children.

"She was upset. This is a sad situation all around. She said she was homeless. She needed the job. Obviously not getting the job. So it's just a sad situation," said Scottsdale Police Sergeant Mark Clark.

She was arrested and booked into jail for child abuse.

Her children are now in CPS custody.
At the link, Taylor is seen in her mugshot, tears streaming down her cheeks.

The bootstrappers will argue that she should have found someone to watch her kids. Everyone has someone they can ask to watch their kids. No. Not everyone does. That's what really having no help from anyone looks like.

People who don't have family they can ask usually have neighbors, but Taylor is homeless. Or co-workers, but Taylor is jobless. Or someone they can pay, but Taylor has no money. With whom could she leave her children? There is no free daycare offered by the government—the same government that is trying to force women to have as many children as possible.

She and her children need food and shelter. She needs a job to provide food and shelter. She needs to go on an interview to get a job to provide food and shelter. She needs to leave her children somewhere while she goes on an interview to get a job to provide food and shelter.

She doesn't have anywhere to leave them. She leaves them in the car, because it is her only option. And she is arrested and her children removed from her care.

Nothing makes sense about indefinitely separating Taylor from her children, as punishment from her leaving them for 45 minutes. But criminalization is the only solution we have. We offer jail, instead of help.

Last fall, I read this story in the local paper: "Poor school attendance leads to charges against parent." That story, too, features a mugshot of a black mother, looking grieved. Because of her son's truancy—he had 19 unexcused absences and was tardy 30 times during the school year—Moina Lucious was arrested, charged with a felony count of neglect, and faced six month to three years in prison.

There were no details in the story about what may have been happening in this family's life that was contributing to the truancy. (I will also note that excused absences cost money; if your kid is sick, and you can't afford to take hir to the doctor, your kid might stay sick for longer, and you also don't have a doctor's note to provide to the school.) Naturally, we're meant to assume that Lucious is just a Terrible Mother, but I can imagine about 2,000 reasons why this could have been happening when support from her community might have solved the problem.

In a way that sending her to prison never will.

What if all the taxpayer money that's used arresting, processing, probably public defending, possibly trying, and maybe jailing women like Taylor and Lucious were instead used toward social programs that would have supported them in the first place?

The people who claim to never have had any help from anyone are the same people who tend to criticize "government hand-outs" and talk about the social safety net like it's a giant waste of taxpayer money—a "wealth redistribution program" to steal rich folks' money and give it to the poor.

(They're also the most likely to say shit like, "Don't have kids if you can't take care of them," while they simultaneously support policy that seeks to deny women control over our reproduction.)

But people need help. Everyone needs help. And not everyone is fortunate enough to have the kind of help that is so reliable it's possible to dismiss it out of hand as not even having been help at all.

This is what really having no help looks like. We don't actually reward not having help in this country; we criminalize it.

And that's not a solution. It's the problem.

Open Wide...

"Get a Job"

[Content Note: Class warfare; choice policing.]

It happens every other month like clockwork: Immediately after I post the fundraising reminder, my inbox lights up with messages from conservatives telling me to "get a job."

"If you want money so bad," goes one (typical) email I received earlier this week, "get a job like everyone else."

This is my job.

In this job, I am a writer, a researcher, a manager, a moderator, an editor, a (terrible) coder, a graphic designer, a mentor, and a de facto social worker: I communicate privately, in email threads that can last for weeks, with Shakers who have lost a loved one, have lost a job, have suffered an injury or trauma, are going through a relationship crisis, are having surgery, have just come out, have just had a baby, have just gotten engaged, are considering an abortion, a divorce, self-harm, need advice or just a sympathetic ear on any one of a million different subjects. I have reviewed résumés and served as a reference. I have found local (to them) psychiatrists, victims' advocates, a gay-friendly wedding planner, a trans-friendly doctor, a tax attorney, plus-sized clothiers.

And, like many jobs, my job does not come with healthcare benefits; it does not come with paid vacation or sick leave; it does not come with a guaranteed paycheck.

It also doesn't come with a boss, or a specific job description, or the respect afforded established careers.

And so it is casually dismissed out of hand as not a job at all.

Random emailers fire off their snarling missives like a scowling passerby might shout at a street busker performing near an upturned hat: "Get a job!"

To be a street performer is work just as much as the work I do is. But it's not work about which conservatives care. It's "having a job."

And if you have a job, of one kind or another, of which they don't approve, then comes the familiar variation: "Get a real job."

These admonishments come without a trace of irony that many people doing nontraditional work are leveraging nontraditional skills because we haven't been able to get "real" jobs in a shitty economy with high levels of unemployment.

I started blogging full-time after I was laid off from a "real" job—a job with a boss and a job description and set hours and a steady paycheck and healthcare benefits and paid time off—at the start of the recession and couldn't get an interview, no less the offer of a permanent position.

I did exactly what conservatives ostensibly want people to do: I pulled myself up by my bootstraps, and I worked extremely hard to use the time granted by misfortune to create a living for myself.

(Which, by virtue of my privileges made it easier for me to do than it would be for people without my privileges. And by virtue of my marginalizations made it more difficult for me to do that it would have been for people with privileges I don't have. It was not hard work alone; and it was harder work than it might otherwise have been.)

This not-a-real-job job, once I was being paid to do it, meant I stopped collecting unemployment before my benefits expired. Those are benefits to which I—and anyone who collects them—are entitled. But conservatives whine bitterly about people who use them. Yet they resent independent work that empowers people to stop using them.

I am speaking to my own experience, because that is what I know and I don't want to speak for anyone else. But I stand in solidarity with all the other people engaged in work that exposes them to a similar contempt.

Writers, bustlers, performers, hustlers—people who trade creative skills for an audience, who offer work in exchange for what their audience values their work to be, who leverage some entrepreneurial spirit that conservatives are meant to respect, who may end up being job creators in the process—we are all met with a special brand of hostility for doing precisely the things that conservatives say they want the moochers and takers to do.

Their boostrap rhetoric is bullshit because it casually elides that we are not all born with the same set of opportunities and access. And it's bullshit because, when presented with evidence of the very self-sufficiency they claim to hold in esteem, they sneer at it.

They denigrate the work, and the people doing it.

Because conservatives don't value work. They value "having a job"—a thing defined by the most privileged aspects of employment in the US.

If conservatives truly valued work, the way they claim, they would not be scolding people for failing to have "real" jobs. They would not ignore that some of the hardest work—parenting, elder care, community and charitable work—often goes totally unpaid. They would acknowledge, as is manifestly evident to anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention, that being poor makes surviving hard fucking work. They wouldn't cozily luxuriate in the silk-lined pockets of profit-driven corporations, where the realest of all real job holding executives aspire to get as rich as possible while doing fuck-all besides exploiting the labor of the people in their employ, because work is something other people do. Because work is for suckers.

I can't think of people less qualified to assess what constitutes a "real" job than people who are intractably hostile to real work.

I have a job. And I respect people's work, whatever its form, including my own.

[Shakesville is run entirely on donations. Please click here to donate.]

Open Wide...

Hard Work

[Content Note: Kyriarchal oppressions.]

I grew up, and still live, in Northwest Indiana, in the shadow of a decimated steel industry where the most common occupation of my childhood friends' fathers was "laid off." It is a place where, when I was laid off in 2005, I was greeted at the local unemployment office by a man who told me: "If you're not a nurse or truck driver, you're probably going to have a hard time finding work again."

Jobs with good salaries and benefits are scarce, unless you are willing to do a two-hour (by car) or three-hour (by train) round-trip commute to and from Chicago every day. Even longer if you work somewhere other than downtown, near the train station. Whether you go by rail or pay for gas and parking, it is expensive to get to your job.

Jobs have been an issue here for as long as I've been alive.

Good jobs. We need good jobs. We need stable jobs that pay a livable wage.

It's not unlike a lot of the rest of the country in that way. Good jobs. Good jobs that pay. Good jobs we can get to, and stay in.

Given the opportunity, people longing for these good jobs will work hard. Working hard is not the issue; it never is, despite the narratives of moochers and takers and people who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives.

$10.10 isn't enough to make a job a good job.

And a job, even with a truly livable wage, is not a good job, if it doesn't come with protections against unequal pay and discrimination.

What makes a job a good job is more than the wage. A good job is a job that's reasonably accessible. A job that comes with the protected right to organize. A job that offers healthcare benefits. A job that offers paid leave—for vacations, for emergencies, for births and deaths. A job where taking that leave isn't held against employees. A job that provides for a good work-life balance. A job where every department is fully staffed. A job where any of the items needed to do that job are paid for by the employer. A job where federal overtime rules are not treated as a suggestion. A job where one is treated with dignity, and never exploited.

This is the bare minimum for what makes a job a good job, for the most privileged workers.

What makes a job a good job for someone from a marginalized population is more yet than a good wage and all of these basics. A good job is a job that pays equal pay for equal work. A job where there is no discrimination on the basis of one's identity. A job where it's safe to disclose all aspects of one's identity. A job which accommodates disabilities, in every way. A job that provides space for nursing parents. A job where the expectation to "get along" is placed always and only on bullies and harassers, and never on the people being bullied or harassed. A job where it is safe to report bullying and harassment and discrimination.

Neither of these constitutes a comprehensive list.

These protections, these things that make a job a good job, are things that the government must legislate and that employers must be willing to put into practice in a meaningful way, because it is decent, not just because it is required.

That takes hard work. To convince people to legislate and implement these protections, and then to legislate and implement them.

And that is the hard work for which there is very little will in this country.

But, by all means, let us continue talking of moochers and takers and welfare queens. And let us continue pretending that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 is enough.

It's just so much easier that way.

[Related Reading: Justice for All.]

Open Wide...

A Real Human Being Actually Said This

[Content Note: Classism.]

Below, video of an exchange between Amanda Lang and Kevin O'Leary (a billionaire who is one of the featured investors on NBC's Shark Tank), from a CBC Television broadcast of The Lang and O'Leary Exchange, a Canadian business news television series (via):

Amanda Lang, a young thin white woman: The wealth, this according to Oxfam, of the world's 85 richest people is equal to the three and a half billion poorest people.

Kevin O'Leary, a middle-aged white man: It's fantastic. And this is a great thing because it inspires everybody—gets the motivation to look up to the one percent and say, "I wanna become one of those people. I'm gonna fight hard to get up to the top." This is fantastic news, and of course I applaud it.

Lang: [stares wordlessly at O'Leary]

O'Leary: What can be wrong with this?

Lang: Really?

O'Leary: Yes, really.

Lang: So, somebody living on—

O'Leary: I celebrate capitalism!

Lang: —a dollar a day in Africa is getting up in the morning and saying, "I'm gonna be Bill Gates."?

O'Leary: That's the motivation everybody needs!

Lang: The only thing between me and that guy is—

O'Leary: I'm not against charity—

Lang: —motivation? I just need to pull up my socks?

O'Leary: I am not—don't—

Lang: Oh wait—I don't have socks!

O'Leary: Look, don't tell me that you wanna redistribute wealth again. That's never gonna happen, okay?

Lang: All— You know what? You take a simple stat like this, which is neither good nor bad [sic], and it's just a fact—

O'Leary: It's a celebratory stat! I'm very excited about it. I'm— Wonderful to see it happen. I tell kids every day—

[crosstalk]

Lang: In case it comes up at a cocktail party—

O'Leary: No, no—Amanda, what's wrong with this statement...

Lang: One possible—one possible response to it—

O'Leary: If you work hard, you might be stinking rich one day.

Lang: We're talking about people in extreme, abject poverty. That's how you get three and a half billion in this category.

O'Leary; No, we're not! You were just talking about really rich people!

Lang: No. [blinks] Okay. Let me tell you later what you should say to this.
Now, O'Leary—for those who aren't familiar with his shtick—loves to say provocative shit like this to amuse himself. But don't mistake for a moment that because he delivers this classist garbage with a wry grin means he doesn't believe it. He believes it.

Or, rather more accurately: He knows it's colossal bullshit, but it's more amusing to him to elicit outrage by saying that extreme wealth inequality should be aspirational to the very poor than it is for him to have a serious discussion about how the sort of unregulated capitalism he has exploited to make himself a billionaire depends on a permanent global underclass.

Amusement at entrenched poverty is a luxury his wealth buys him, and which he clearly enjoys.

Kevin O'Leary is not a stupid fella. He knows how the world works. He isn't truly operating under the misconception that all it takes to get from living on $1 a day to billionaire is hard work. It's just a punchline to guys like him.

At least O'Leary has the mettle to let us see he thinks it's all just a big joke.

[Related Reading: Wealth Gap.]

Open Wide...