Samantha Atkins wrote:
> "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > >
> > > "Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> > A community is not an asset that belongs to you, and if its tyrannical, it must
> > not be worth much, or else you must enjoy tyrannical communities. Make up your
> > mind.
> A community can be prized for many different things. I prize living in
> Silicon Valley at the center of so much tech craze and with Foresight
> and so on down the street enough to put up with California stupidity and
> with ultra high costs, for now. The equation of what is and is not
> worth the cost is not simple.
Only if you are not decisive and do not know what is important to you. I could
probably make lots of money living in Silicon Valley. You couldn't get me to
live anywhere in California for a million bucks.
> >I personally find that more poor people move around far more frequently
> > than more affluent people, so your argument does not hold. Welfare people seem
> > to find it quite easy to move from city to city and state to state to follow the
> > best benefits, according to the data. U-HAUL and KOA are wonderful things. I
> > could move my own household for $500-$1000 from coast to coast with little
> > trouble. People seem to excel at finding reasons to not do things far more than
> > finding reasons to do things.
> Having been dirt poor once or twice in my long life I can assure you
> that moving is no picnic when you haven't hardly (if at all) the money
> for this month's rent plus groceries much less for first, last and
> moving costs. The costs you list above is far beyond what can be
> afforded when you are really poor. Welfare? I was never eligible for
> one bureaucratic reason or another, not even when I was literally down
> and out enough to be eating out of soup kitchens. I was pretty dumb and
> down and out in those long ago days but I wasn't a simple parasite
> following the crumbs of welfare to the easiest pickings.
Having been dirt poor myself once or twice, I realize the price I quoted is
higher than some could afford, it is what *I* could move coast to coast for
without selling off furniture or other posessions in my current household, but
those that would be that poor would likely find a bus ticket and/or just gas
money for their stuffed car to be more than sufficient.
Currently we are seeing people whose Massachusetts welfare benefits have expired
are being told to move to NH, which has a limit of 5 years, though the benefits
are lower. These people would rather move to get lower benefits than go to work,
and they seem to be able to afford the move as well. If they put as much effort
into working as they do into not working, they could make a decent wage.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT