^^^ December 31, 2003         An Average Lifestyle

[asfo_del]
What does an average, affordable lifestyle in the U.S. look like?

The median income in the U.S. is $22,000 a year. After taxes, it comes to about $20,000. This is an example of what the average person can afford:

Rent: $7800 ................................[$650 a month]
Food (groceries): $3000 ....................[$250 a month]
Electricity: $420 ..........................[$35 a month]
Local phone: $540 ..........................[$45 a month]
Long distance: $240 ........................[$20 a month]
Gas (not including heat): $420 .............[$35 a month]
Heat: $700 [$100 a month for the cold months; average $58 a month]
Health Insurance: $2400.................... [$200 a month]
Household goods: $240 ..................... [$20 a month]
(including cleaners, pots and pans, etc.)
Transportation (bus and subway): $1200 [$100 a month]
Savings: $1200 .............................[$100 a month]
Toiletries: $30 ............................[$2.50 a month]
Internet service: $120 .....................[$10 a month]
Clothing: $150 .............................[$12.50 a month]
Eating out: $420 ...........................[$35 a month]
Entertainment: $240 ........................[$20 a month]
Books and CDs: $120.........................[$10 a month]
Electronic equipment: $100 .................[$8 a month]
Vacations and travel: $420 .................[$35 a month]
Unexpected and miscellaneous: $240 .........[$20 a month]

Since this is more than twice my own income, when I set out to make up this hypothetical budget I thought it would stretch much further than this. But this was educational even for me: the average person in the U.S. can only afford a very modest lifestyle. The person in this example does not have a car, for instance. If she did, then her transportation expenses would be something like this:

Purchase price of the car: $3000 for a used car. Assuming it would last six years, that's $500 a year [$42 a month].
Insurance: $1000 a year [$83 a month]
Gas: $720 [$60 a month]
Maintenance: $200 [$17 a month]
Repairs: $400 [$33 a month]
Tolls: $300 [$25 a month]
Parking: $200 [$17 a month]
Tickets: $100 [$8 a month]

This would add $3420 to the yearly budget. If you subtract the $1200 it costs to commute by bus or subway, that would leave $2220 that has to be subtracted from elsewhere in the budget for the year. That would mean eliminating eating out, entertainment, books and CDs, electronic equipment, vacations and travel, and saving only $300 a year instead of $1200.

This hypothetical person also does not have a cell phone, cable TV, a fast internet connection, or optional phone services like call waiting. She does not rent movies, she rarely buys new clothes; her expendeitures on toiletries are minimal: she does not wear make up, doesn't go to a hairdresser or a spa. She doesn't belong to a gym. She doesn't go out to bars or clubs except maybe once every couple of months. Or if she never goes out at all except to go to the movies, she sees two movies a month [no popcorn].

Since I watch a lot of TV [yep...], I have had occasion to see numerous segments on "news" and interview shows touting the latest gadgets: a digital camera with a portable printer that allows you to see your pictures immediately, cell phones that are also cameras, home karaoke machines.... The average person cannot afford any of these things. I've seen financial advice that recommends contributing the maximum allowed to a 401k: $12,000 a year. Who are they talking to?

Okay, so one could just ignore all of that. But many people seem to have been sold on this idea that an unaffordable lifestyle is the norm. According to a poll, people in the U.S. planned to spend an average of $734 this year on holiday gifts. Thirty percent planned to spend over $1000. The hypothetical person in my example did not budget anything for Christmas gifts [presumably she would make them herself, or offer favors like babysitting and housecleaning?], and she's still stretched pretty thin!

Many people are in debt because they simply do not earn enough income to cover even their basic expenses, but there are also significant numbers who have become convinced that expenses beyond their means are normal - even necessary - through the unrelenting efforts of corporate profiteers to part people from their money and line their own pockets with it. Those corporate shills are lying! America, this is your lifestyle!

"="|"="|"="|"="|"="|"="|"="

^^^ December 29, 2003         Uninsured Access to Health Care

[asfo_del]
Many people seem to believe that needed health care is somehow available for people with no health insurance. That's simply not true. Yes, if you go to the emergency room of a public hospital you will be treated (as long as you have an emergency; you won't be given routine care), but you will be billed for that service, to the tune of hundreds or even tens of thousands if you required hospitalization and surgery. Many people cannot afford to take the chance of facing a huge bill and will just forego care.

Here are some facts from http://dev.kff.org/uninsured/1420-05.cfm.

-In 2002, over 40% of uninsured adults postponed seeking medical care, and 28% say they needed but did not get medical care in the past year.
-Uninsured children are 70% more likely than insured children not to receive medical care for common conditions like ear infections and 30% less likely to receive medical attention when they are injured.
-In addition to health consequences, lack of insurance can have a substantial financial impact: 44% of the uninsured had a serious problem paying medical bills in 2002, and nearly a third were contacted by a collection agency about medical bills.
-The uninsured are more likely than those with insurance to be hospitalized for conditions that could have been avoided, such as pneumonia and uncontrolled diabetes.
-The uninsured with various forms of cancer are more likely to be diagnosed with late stage cancer. Death rates for uninsured women with breast cancer are significantly higher compared to women with insurance.
Charitable physicians and the safety net of community clinics and public hospitals do not substitute for health insurance. Lack of coverage clearly matters for the millions of uninsured Americans—affecting job decisions, financial security, access to care, and health status.

_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_|_

^^^ December 25, 2003    Scapegoat

[Richard]
This past night and morning (December 24 to 25), I have been contemplating the phenomenon of the scapegoat. I’m not going to dwell on the religious connections to this phenomenon (seasonal though they may be right now) because I don’t think I know enough about that. But I do think I can say a thing or two about contemporary scapegoating, some of which I know from first-hand experience.

I think it would be fair to say that I have experienced some scapegoating throughout my life, in the schoolyard, in the workplace, and in political groups. I won't speculate too much why that is; suffice to say, I know that I have some self-destructive tendencies to challenge or aggravate people whom I've perceived to be manipulators and power-grabbers -- or power wielders. I've also suffered from being perceived of as an outsider or "weird" or a "weirdo" (a complaint about me that’s actually been voiced by a few supervisors over the past few years). But whatever the reason, I know what it's like to be the convenient target now and then.

Certainly, though, I'm not alone. I'm sure most people at one time or another have felt like that poor goat of ancient times who was taken out into the wilderness and knocked off a cliff so that he could bear the burden of other people's problems or sins. In our society, scapegoating is a vital component, especially in the areas of politics and work.

It should be clear how important the scapegoat is in politics, as we see it all the time in the news. This is another area that I’ll glance over only briefly, since you can find the information in abundance elsewhere. Suffice to say that those in power love to find villains on which to focus the public’s attention, in order to keep that public distracted from more effectively pursuing its own interests. If it weren’t for so much scapegoating, the people might be inclined to more directly challenge those in power who are beating the war drums in the first place. Or the people might even eventually challenge power in general, seeking a more fair and egalitarian kind of society.

Unfortunately, scapegoating is also pretty common in contemporary oppositional politics, too, even in the smallest and supposedly most non-hierarchical groups. (And here is the sort of tendency you won’t hear that much about in the news, not even – or especially not – the "progressive" news.) Asfodel and I explored some of this phenomenon (since neither of us is exactly a stranger to it) in our Collective Book on Collective Process, especially the chapter "Creating Pariahs". Through observation and experience, we have found that "non-hierarchical" oppositional or ideological groups often love to create pariahs, which is closely related to scapegoating. And, we have found that our perception on this matter is not unique. "Creating Pariahs" generated the most positive feedback out of any chapter in the Collective Book, as both friends and strangers wrote in saying things like, "Wow, I feel as though you were exactly describing my own experience."

But the problem of scapegoating seems to be prevalent in just about any situation in our society that involves working with a group of people toward a goal. In fact, it's probably most common in the regular capitalist workplace.

How many people who've worked in offices don't know what it's like to be a scapegoat at one time or another? The problem has become so prevalent that it’s even being taken up seriously by some psychologists and social workers.

I recently stumbled on a lot of good discussion on this issue at a Web site centered on the general topic of work abuse -- i.e., psychological abuse suffered by employees in the workplace. This site is written mostly by two people, Judy Wyatt and Chauncey Hare, who have also written a related book on the issue, Work Abuse: How To Recognize It and Survive It.

I find Wyatt and Hare’s work to be very interesting at times, because they often use the language of psychology and even pop psychology to reach fairly radical social-political conclusions about the plight of workers and the changes for which workers need to struggle. Most significantly, they explore the need for collective action among workers, the imperatives to democratize the workplace, and the reasons that we must overcome the negative effects of specialization and the division of labor (an aspect of the site that I hope to return to later). But these authors are also particularly good at pinpointing specific kinds of abuse in the workplace, especially scapegoating. For instance, note this passage, from an article penned by Wyatt connecting work abuse to child abuse:

"It's an unfortunate fact that most workplaces keep employees functioning in a state of chronic fear and shame, destroying potential and fostering mental and physical symptoms, just like dysfunctional families. As in families with rigid boundaries, they often scapegoat a selected person until he or she breaks down. Our organizational and clinical experience shows scapegoating is more widespread than work organizations care to admit. Scapegoating often happens to employees who were previously the most creative and productive, because the systems' norms often require punishing people who question the dysfunctional rules."

Certainly, I can relate to being punished for questioning the dysfunctional rules! And, certainly, it’s nice to see a Web site and book which remind us that even when it seems that a whole group has come to blame you, it doesn’t mean that you are necessarily being all that bad, incompetent, or wrong. I would never contend that people who get scapegoated are always flawless or entirely perfect in their behavior. Yet, especially for those who aren’t conformists or don’t fit so well into groups or group think, flaws or misdeeds can be grossly exaggerated. Often blame and ostracism result less from the specific errors of the individuals being blamed or ostracized than they do from particular power relationships within groups and the apparently age-old tendency of people to seek out someone to carry all the baggage that they need to dump.

I believe that the Wyatt and Hare are correct in their assessment that scapegoating in the workplace comes from authoritarianism. Yet, this tendency won’t disappear simply when a workplace is established that is democratic in superficial practice and theory. Like many tendencies related to authoritarianism, scapegoating won’t begin to disappear until people go much further to rid themselves of all authoritarianism, both in their environment and in their own heads.

*+#*+#*+#*+#*+#*#+*#+*#+*#+*#+*#+

^^^ December 22, 2003         The Beauty of Science

[asfo_del]
I just read the most wonderful book: Uncle Tungsten, by Oliver Sacks, who is known as a neurologist and author of several books (also pretty great) about unusual neurological conditions, some of which are remarkable for causing unexpected behaviors in the people who suffer from them, like The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat.. But this book is about his childhood in London in the 1940s. He is from a family of scientists, and as a boy he became obsessed with studying metals and their chemical properties.

Tungsten is a remarkable metal for its density, about the same as gold's, and its ability to withstand high temperatures without melting, hence its use as the filament that glows brightly in light bulbs. Sacks's uncle, after whom the book is named, owned an early factory that manufactured light bulbs, and was just as fascinated as his young nephew by the history of the light bulb's development and the chemical properties of the materials that made its development possible. The challenge was to make a filament that was thin enough to create the necessary resistance to make it glow, but without melting. Platinum's melting point was not high enough. Osmium was too rare and could not be drawn into a filament: it had to be cast in a mold, which made it too brittle. Edison's early experiments used carbon filaments: literally a burnt-up piece of thread. But these were too fragile. Tantalum worked well, but to obtain the needed resistance it had to be of such a length that the light bulb was thick with a spider web of filament. The problem with tungsten was that it would blacken the inside of the bulb as it evaporated, but that was solved by filling the bulb with an inert gas. And voila, the modern light bulb.

Reading this book made me want to collect metals: a sample of every elemental metal that is safe enough to have around (although I'm sure I won't...). And to display a periodic table of the Elements at home. For reference. Just like I have a large map of the world in my bedroom now. In 1945 the Science Museum in London had a huge periodic table made up of cabinets, each one containing a sample of the element it represented, along with the name, atomic weight, and symbol of each. What an amazing artifact! To Sacks, the beauty of the periodic table is that it demonstrates the mathematical language that underlies all of the natural world. The properties of every element are determined by its atomic number, which is an unalterable constant. The very same elements have to exist, by mathematical necessity, throughout the universe as they do here on earth.

I've never been particularly adept at science nor math (although I am wary of people who throw up their hands and give up, saying they are not good at math; it seems to me that solutions to math problems, at least the relatively simple ones that are posed in math classes, are always available, even if, as someone who doesn't have a particular facility with math, you have to apply a plodding kind of method to get at them), but especially after reading such an inspired and passionate homage to chemistry, I wish I had given those areas more of a chance. Most of all, I wish I could be an expert at something - anything. To really know something in depth. Although I was always a very good student, school subjects have always been for me a tiresome and anxiety-producing obligation. Even if I were not so tired all the time, which precludes any in-depth study of anything, I wonder if I would ever have had the discipline, the patience, and the perseverance to be a scholar in the pure sense of pursuing knowledge for its own sake. Sadly, I don't think so. Maybe now that I'm almost 40 I actually could. Higher education seems to be wasted on such a restless age.

<::><::><::><::><::><::><::>

^^^ December 16, 2003    Modernized Poverty Versus Autonomy...and A Sermon to Sum It All Up

[Richard]
Lately, I’ve had the pleasure of rereading Ivan Illich, who died one year and two weeks ago. One of the most important concepts that Ivan Illich talked about, in my opinion, was the idea of modernized poverty. When we talk in this journal about global poverty, my thoughts return to this concept repeatedly.

Illich pointed out that modern so-called "prosperity" often brings with it new ways to be poor. Especially in the market economy that comes with capitalist development, people become dependent on certain things, systems, and specialized professions, in turn losing autonomy personal abilities (or confidence in their abilities, or legal or social freedoms to exercise them). Because the new things/professionals/systems on which people become dependent are also sold on the market in some way or other, they cost money and require funding that was not really needed before. Thus, it may seem that people enjoy greater "prosperity," but with that prosperity comes more dependence on capital as well as a greater danger of helplessness.

Probably, the best Illich passage on modernized poverty can be found in The Right to Useful Unemployment and its professional enemies, which work is also included in a larger volume, Toward a History of Needs (which is the book I referred to when I put a link to this excerpt on the links page listed in our"parent" site a number of months ago). As Illich says…

"Modernized poverty appears when the intensity of market dependence reaches a certain threshold. Subjectively, it is the experience of frustrating affluence which occurs in persons mutilated by their overwhelming reliance on the riches of industrial productivity. Simply, it deprives those affected by it of their freedom and power to act autonomously, to live creatively; it confines them to survival through being plugged into market relations....

"Wherever the shadow of economic growth touches us, we are left useless unless employed on a job or engaged in consumption; the attempt to build a house or set a bone outside the control of certified specialists appears as anarchic conceit. We lose sight of our resources, lose control over the environmental conditions which make these resources applicable, lose taste for self-reliant coping with challenges from without and anxiety from within....

"For advanced industrial society, the modernization of poverty means that people are helpless to recognize evidence unless it has been certified by a professional, be he a television weather commentator or an educator; that organic discomfort becomes intolerably threatening unless it has been medicalized into dependence on a therapist; that neighbors and friends are lost unless vehicles bridge the separating distance (created by the vehicles in the first place). In short, most of the time we find ourselves out of touch with our world, out of sight of those for whom we work, out of tune with what we feel."

These passages from Illich are essential to the issue of consumerism. They help us to understand that in many ways we are trapped into consumerism not only out of a psychologically created need to buy unnecessary goods that seem to lend us identity and status, but also out of the feeling -- which may have varying degrees of legitimacy -- that we cannot survive without participating as full consumers in the marketplace. As Illich points out, many of us have lost, or were never even raised with, the ability to function without consumer services.

The prohibitions against autonomous functioning become especially clear when we reach a condition of poverty that requires us to depend on the government. Admittedly, in my own life, though I have qualified for a few government services during the past couple of years (at least in terms of overall income), I have been unable -- and to a degree unwilling -- to overcome the many bureaucratic hurdles thrown in my path. Yet, the abundance of those hurdles indicates the extent of the bureaucracy to which people are subject once they do "get in." When I speak to people dependent on the welfare system (or what’s left of it), it becomes clear to me that this system does everything possible to render them at least as dependent socially as they are economically. It seems that people are unable to make a significant move without being asked to consult social workers, bureaucratic experts and (if they are collecting disability) doctors, all of whom have carved a niche for themselves in the consumer-oriented market of professionals, supposedly qualifying them to tell the rest of us how to run our own lives.

It is true that being poor without many of these services is worse than being poor with them. For instance, I probably would be very happy right now if I could obtain government-funded health coverage, and I’d probably gladly put up with all the bureaucracy once I was able to "get in." I’m also aware that a lot of people lived a little freer and easier before the “bipartisan” assault on the welfare system that destroyed "welfare as we know it" for good (thanks ultimately to the Clintonian Democratic Party, who are probably going to try to pose as our progressive saviors for the next 10 months). On the other hand, let’s not forget what a miserable failure the welfare system was to begin with, making people feel so helpless and powerless while keeping them poor.

Of course, I can, sort of, see another side to this whole issue... I am aware that there might be some advantages to modern living as we know it, and that I have gotten through 42 years of my life without having to participate more directly in my own human maintenance through growing or raising my own food, helping to build my own dwelling, etc. Yet, in a different kind of society, I think that even I might learn to do more of those things. And I actually do think it is, maybe, possible for us to create a kind of world in which we all can enjoy a more autonomous yet sustainable and community-supportive existence without moving back completely to a prehistoric past. (It may take a lot of work and a lot of changes and a lot of struggle, and we probably won't see it in our lifetimes. But it is possible, if the world isn't destroyed first.) In the meantime, though, I am certainly not going to feel grateful to the systems and "leaders" who’ve helped to bring us into the present world, where people are rendered completely dependent on a marketplace in which almost everything must be bought and sold.

*********************************************

On a lighter note (sort of), I’ve run across a great old song by Chumbawamba while rummaging through my roommate’s record collection during his absence this month. Found on their second album, Never Mind the Ballots, "Today’s Sermon" goes like this:

Though they broke my legs
They gave me a crutch to walk
Though they broke my legs
They gave me a crutch to walk
Though they broke my legs
They gave me a crutch to walk
Their laws to guide me
And a crutch to walk

…To which I can only say, Amen!

*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*

^^^ December 15, 2003         Saddam's Capture Justifies War?

[asfo_del]
I don't usually offer commentary on current political events on this journal, since such commentary is widely available elsewhere on the web and by better informed authors than myself, but I think it's important to be reminded, with Saddam Hussein's capture being touted as justification for this terrible and bloody war, that the U.S. administration stated back in March that even if Saddam Hussein stepped down, as president Bush demanded, the war still would have gone on as planned. This was documented in an article in The New York Times published March 18, 2003.

From: New York Times, March 18, 2003
"Allies Will Move In, Even if Saddam Hussein Moves Out
By MICHAEL R. GORDON (NYT)
CAMP DOHA, Tuesday, March 18 -- Even if Saddam Hussein leaves Iraq within 48 hours, as President Bush demanded, allied forces plan to move north into Iraqi territory, American officials said today.
It appeared extremely unlikely that Mr. Hussein and his family would accede to Mr. Bush's ultimatum.... Even if they did, officials said, allied forces would enter Iraq to search for hidden caches of weapons of mass destruction and help stabilize the nation so that a new and more democratic regime could take over. [...]"

[This article is not available for free on the web. It can be purchased for $2.95 from nytimes.com.]

o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o=o

^^^ December 14, 2003         U.S. Income Distribution

[asfo_del]
U.S. Income Distribution: 2001
All People 15 years and over: 221,591,000
Total with income: 200,814,000

Income:    Number of People:
$0-$2499   15,095,000
$2,500      9,280,000
$5,000      13,601,000
$7,500      11,755,000
$10,000     13,154,000
$12,500     9,792,000
$15,000     11,149,000
$17,500     8,450,000
$20,000     10,510,000
$22,500     7,113,000
$25,000     9,059,000
$27,500     5,696,000
$30,000     9,377,000
$32,500     4,478,000
$35,000     7,063,000
$37,500     3,812,000
$40,000     6,376,000
$42,500     2,836,000
$45,000     4,296,000
$47,500     2,406,000
$50,000     4,694,000
$52,500     1,933,000
$55,000     2,619,000
$57,500     1,416,000
$60,000     3,038,000
$62,500     1,250,000
$65,000     1,776,000
$67,500     975,000
$70,000     1,794,000
$72,500     800,000
$75,000     1,660,000
$77,500     713,000
$80,000     1,251,000
$82,500     589,000
$85,000     838,000
$87,500     356,000
$90,000     758,000
$92,500     446,000
$95,000     510,000
$97,500     350,000
$100,000 and up 7,749,000

Fewer than 8 million people out of 222 million who are old enough to work make $100,000 a year or more.
Only 26 million people have an income of $60,000 a year or more.
The median income [the halfway mark] is $21,934 a year.
50 million people make less than $10,000 a year.
92 million people make less than $20,000 a year.
These numbers refer to all people in the U.S. who are 15 years old and older, regardless of whether they have a job. [Therefore the fact that there are 15 million people who make less than $2500 a year could mean that many of those people are teenagers living at home -- at least I would hope!]

Statistics of this type interest me because they paint a picture that is so starkly at odds with the impression conveyed by the media and even by the people you talk to every day. I think many people would say that $60,000 a year is a modest salary, yet little more than 10% of adults in the U.S. make that much or more. Everybody seems to be convinced that they are struggling to make ends meet, regardless of whether their income is $100 a month or $5000 a month. [Of course many people are struggling terribly, but it's difficult for me to muster a lot of sympathy for those in the top 10% of income distribution.]

The statistics that are most often cited refer to household income, which I consider misleading, since most households presumably consist of two, or maybe more, breadwinners. Thus the U.S. median income usually mentioned is about $40,000 a year, but that refers to household income. Individuals making $40,000 a year or more number only 55 million, or about a quarter of adults.

What these figures mean to me is that the great majority of us should consider a conventional American lifestyle utterly irrelevant. The great majority of us cannot afford to buy a new car, yet 17 million new cars are sold every year. For many, such an expense can lead to financial catastrophe. The great majority of us cannot afford most of the things that are considered normal: electronic gadgetry, subscriptions to various services like phone options, cable, and high-speed internet, mainstream entertainment like tickets to sports events and concerts, most restaurants and clubs.... That's not a bad thing. Consuming does not fulfill our emotional needs. Lucky for us, things that cannot be bought, like love, companionship, family, creativity, humor, thoughts, and ideas, are some of what makes our lives fulfilling.

::||::||::||::||::||::||::

^^^ December 12, 2003    Another Perspective on Credit Cards

[Richard]
My present credit card balance is about $11,300 (soon to max out at $12,000). Yet, I actually purchase extremely little on that card in terms of consumer items, entertainment, or luxuries. The bulk of my credit card balance, especially over the past couple of years, has come from cash advances that I took out to pay for utilities and rent. Another good chunk of the balance has come from payment of medical bills, especially bills for specialized dental procedures (including a root canal that cost me over $1,000, which turned out to be useless because the tooth started to crumble to pieces within six months).

I first purchased this credit card in 1988, when I was 26 or 27 years old. I did this at the urging of my sister, who was disturbed that I had gone so long into adulthood without a credit card. (Note, incidentally, that my sister is five and a half years older than me, which somehow qualified her sometime ago to give me lots of dubious advice.) Specifically, my sister told me to get a Working Assets card, which she said would satisfy my social conscience because a tiny amount of money (a nickel or something like that) would go to a list of about 30 causes every time I used it. Of course, that whole notion was kind of silly, since Working Assets credit cards probably do much more damage to progressive causes than they do good, by supporting evil banks.

I don't remember the first bank connected to my Working Assets card, but I remember the second one, Fleet Bank, which is probably one of the most horrible and destructive banks in the world. (I'm sure everyone is familiar with the crash of the economy in Argentina? I've heard that Fleet Bank definitely contributed to that.) What's more, Fleet Bank is horrible to its customers -- or, at least, those customers who are struggling to get by. Because my Working Assets card was operating through Fleet Bank, I ended up being subject to outrageous penalties for paying my minimum balance only one day late, even when the due date was a Sunday (as it often was). And at one point, because I had made a late payment, they (i.e., Working Assets Visa, because it was operating through Fleet Bank) raised my interest rate to 28 percent. That rate lasted for several months, despite my objections and attempts to change it. Then the rate was finally lowered to around 19 percent, where it has been hovering for a number of months.

A few months ago, Working Assets sold the credit card to MBNA America. I don't know much about this bank and haven't had time to research it. They seem to be treating me a little better than Fleet Bank (for example, they took my word that I was misinformed about a due date and waived my late fee and didn't charge a minimum payment for a month -- which is stuff I don't think Fleet Bank ever would have done). Nonetheless, I'm sure that they commit evils that I just haven't found out about yet.

But getting back to the main issue here... Of course, if you can avoid having a credit card, or if you can avoid building a balance on one, by all means do so. I avoided having any balance at all on my credit card for the first three years that I had it. Then I broke up with my common law wife, had a major change in expenses, and needed to use the card more to adjust. So, I started to build up a small balance, which I maintained for about ten years. But once I started to encounter new employment difficulties and started to have more trouble getting by financially, that's when my balance started to multiply...

It's because of my own experience that I sometimes recoil when someone starts scolding the population at large or "Americans," especially, for building up a big credit card debt. I firmly believe that if the United States really had a social safety net, a lot of people would have avoided credit card debt. As I've said before, credit cards are our social safety net.

In many ways, we are forced to buy into the system when we don't want to, in order to ensure our own economic survival. For instance, during the past couple of decades, retirement accounts were changed so that they depended increasingly on investments in stocks and bonds. Most people don't want to support sleazy HMOs, but they have less and less choice in the matter, unless they want to go without health coverage (like some of us). Credit cards are a more extreme example. They've put many of us into further debt with some of the sleaziest corporations on the planet. But, ironically, these same sleazy credit cards enabled us to treat painful medical problems and keep a roof over our heads.

&x&x&x&x&x&x&x&x&x&x&x&x&x&

^^^ December 12, 2003         Some of My Bills

[asfo_del]
In keeping with the general topic of this journal, living on less, I like to occasionally post actual figures regarding my own living expenses. I personally find minutiae about people's lives interesting. I also like lists of facts because they have a kind of concrete substance to them that I find very satisfying. Though I'm also a big fan of ideas, of course....

These are some of my most recent bills:

Credit Card:
10/17 Drugstore $7.20
10/22 US Post Office (mailed a painting I sold on ebay) $10.75
10/24 US Post Office (mailed a package to a friend) $2.44
11/01 Rizzoli Bookstore (bought Italian crossword puzzle magazine and Italian
newspaper for my parents) $4.25
11/01 Metrocard (fare card for subway and bus rides) $10.00
11/01 Port Authority Bus Terminal (bus ticket to visit my parents and sister) $27.55
11/10 Internet provider $9.95
11/11 Web site for Collective Book $4.95
Total: $77.09
Previous balance: $42.43
Past due amount: $0
Finance charges: $0
This is my only credit card. I do have one other one but only Mike uses it.

Phone:
Monthly charge for dial tone: $8.61
Local calls (163 calls at 9 cents each): $14.67
Surcharges and taxes: $13.86
Optional services: $0
Total: $37.14
Previous balance: $48.97
This is only for local phone service. In New York City, every local call (including internet dial up) costs 9 cents. This month's bill is unusually low because we were away for about a week around Thanksgiving, and therefore made fewer calls than usual.

Electric:
Minimum delivery charge: $10.01
Delivery (110 KWH): $6.52
Supply (110 KWH): $16.82
Total: $33.35
Previous balance: $39.39
We recently received a $10 check from the "green" electricity supplier as a thank you (or as a promotion, depending how you look at it) which more than offsets the extra cost of the green power, which is negligible anyway. Check green-e for availability of environmentally friendly electric power in your area.

Gas:
Minimum delivery charge: $24.96
Delivery (47.3 therms): $32.96
Supply (47.3 therms): $35.47
Taxes: $4.83
Total: $98.21
Previous balance: $49.42
Gas is billed two months at a time, so this bill covers two months. The figures are essentially meaningless as far as determining our actual cost because it's an estimated bill, and usage of course varies drastically according to the weather (we use gas for heat, hot water, and cooking). I think the highest two-month bill we had last winter was about $270.

o=|=o=|=o=|=o=|=o=|=o

^^^ December 10, 2003         Disability

[asfo_del]
The topic of what happens to people who are unable to work and therefore can't support themselves in interesting to me personally because I am one of them. I have fibromyalgia (assuming that I have received the correct diagnosis...), a not very well understood condition that causes severe, chronic fatigue and widespread aches and pains. I also have terrible trouble sleeping (it's 3:48am as I am writing this), which may be a result of the condition or its cause, I don't know. There's no known treatment, and the advice I've received from doctors, who are not in any case my favorite professionals, has been, frequently, absurd and maddening.

The most common advice I get is that I should exercise. On most days I am too tired to take a shower. I had to cut my hair because when it was long washing it was too exhausting. If I have any energy I'll use it to take care of needed tasks like cooking or doing the dishes, or, if I'm really in top form, running errands. I'm certainly not going to waste it on an unproductive task like exercising. In a healthy person, regular exercise makes her stronger, but, with me, any amount of overdoing it only knocks me down. I have to spend several quiet days afterward, mainly watching TV in bed, just to recover. Shouldn't this be obvious to a doctor? I asked my doctor if she recommended exercise to her patients who have the flu. She said that I don't have the flu.

I applied more than once for Social Security disability. Since fibromyalgia is not a "listed impairment," meaning it is not on a list of diseases that Social Security has recognized as disabling, as an applicant you have to prove not only that you have the disease, but that you are completely and totally unable to work. (I still have no clue as to how you could possibly demonstrate that, except maybe by being unable to show up for your hearing, in which case your application would be automatically thrown out.) The beauty part is that Social Security does not ask for any evidence or documents (other than medical records); you have to guess on that for yourself. The standard, I am told, is to submit statements from your doctors, but of course they know absolutely nothing about whether you are disabled by your illness. Hell, they think you can exercise!

My doctors submitted nothing. At the time, I was going to a large public hospital for medical care, since I had no health insurance. Its bureaucracy is so gargantuan that the correspondence office never even sent in my basic medical records, not even after a subpoena. And yes, I had a lawyer. In spite of calling her numerous times over several months to try to find out what evidence I should be trying to put together, to no avail, I only met her for the first time on the day of the hearing. The judge didn't ask me a single question about fatigue. He asked me whether I was able to hold a pen or sit in a chair.

I can't reapply for disability because the credits I earned by working have expired. There's another form of Social Security disability insurance, called SSI (Supplemental Security Insurance), which does not depend on prior work history. It is only available to people with no financial resources. I am not eligible because I am part-owner of a house, and anyway I would still have to meet the same elusive standard of proof regarding my inability to work.

I'm doing fine. My illness is not physically or emotionally crippling. It's not horrible. It isn't life-threatening. I just have to put up with being exhausted all the time, which is not really that bad; in a way it's kind of Zen because I have to spend so much of my time being contemplative (i.e. doing nothing). Still, I have no doubt that if it were not for a very small circle of people who will always take care of me, I would be in serious trouble. And I know that many others who are ill and are not as lucky to have able, generous, and steadfast family and friends are in fact in terrible trouble.

#::#::#::#::#::#::#::#

^^^ December 8, 2003    Make $25,000 a Year or More? You're Better Off Than 99% of the World

[asfo_del]
Yearly income of the world's population (1993):

$24,447

$13,241

$1044

World Population By 5% Increments (top 5% is divided into lower 4% and upper 1%)

Yearly income of the bottom 5%: $238 a year and under
Middle 5%: $1044 a year
Top 5% (not including top 1%): $13,241 a year
Top 1%: $24,447 and up

This graph does not show the lower and upper limits of worldwide income. The lower limit is, of course, zero. The annual income of the richest 1% of the world's population starts at $24,447 and goes up astronomically from there. Bill Gates is believed to have made as much as $50 billion dollars in one year. If that income were represented on this chart, that line would have to be 500 million pixels high.

Source: True world income distribution, 1988 and 1993: First calculation based on household surveys alone by Branko Milanovic. (This information was not presented as a graph in the original source. The graph is mine and should not be considered scientific.)

See also http://www.globalrichlist.com/how.html for a graph of world income distribution, and http://www.lcurve.org/ for a graph of U.S. income distribution.

+::+::+::+::+::+::+

^^^ December 7, 2003         Splurging

[asfo_del]
I read an account recently about the items left behind in an older woman's home after her passing. The author was saddened by the very carefully stored away fine linens, quality handbags, and well-made articles of clothing, most of which had clearly never been used. Some items had actually deteriorated in storage and lost their usefulness as a result of their owner's extreme preoccupation with their safekeeping. The point of the story was that one should enjoy life rather than allowing an overly scrupulous frugality to sour it.

But the story assumes that the woman in question did not derive pleasure from her meticulously preserved objects. I can imagine her smiling happily to think of all her beautiful treasures safely tucked away in their boxes and drawers. I can relate to a certain extent. Although I don't like to own stuff, especially expensive stuff that I will have to feel badly at some point about having lost, wasted, or ruined, I do understand the anxiety that can come with taking a risk with one's small and limited resources.

People are frequently urged to "live a little," "splurge," "pamper yourself." I can hardly imagine anything that would make me feel more miserable than throwing my money away, especially if it could mean running out of the funds I need to cover my basic living expenses. That degree of anxiety would be unbearable for me. [Although for many, many people it's an unavoidable fact of daily life.]

Earlier on in this journal I wrote more often about saving money, which is a difficult topic to broach because it's so personal and emotionally charged. I'm often amazed at the level of spending that is normal for the people around me. I live on about $600 a month for all my living expenses. But it's easy for me to be frugal because spending money actually makes me miserable! [Which is not to say I never splurge, but I stick to very small splurges like chocolate, cookies and Chinese food.]

<">=<">=<">=<">=<">=<">

^^^ December 4, 2003         Where Do You Fall When You Fall Through the Cracks?

[asfo_del]
According to an article in The Economist [Nov. 15-21], the American Psychiatric Association estimates that one in five prisoners in the U.S. has a serious mental illness. In addition, as many as one in four homeless people suffers from a serious mental disorder.

This is what happens when a wealthy country that could well afford to give needed services to its people does not, and, instead, sends hundreds of thousands of non-violent, petty law-breakers to prison. Most mentally ill prisoners "have committed minor offenses that are a direct consequence of lack of treatment and services."

Congressman Ted Strickland, from Ohio, who is a psychologist and spent several years in a maximum security prison before being elected to Congress, is quoted in The Economist as saying that continuing on this path would mean accepting "incarceration and homelessness as part of life for the most vulnerable population among us."

When someone is in a position where she is unable to take care of herself, is unable to earn income, has no family who is able or willing to help, and has little or no access to health care or other forms of assistance, there is no other possible outcome than for that person to end up on the street, and, once there, to sooner or later cross paths with law enforcement.

This could happen to anyone with any disabling illness, but someone with a mental disorder is especially vulnerable to incarceration because her actions can be misinterpreted. "Untreated mental illness often leads to behaviors that attract the attention of police officers."

The article I'm referring to only focuses on the effects of severely disruptive illnesses. But our society is so ready to toss away anyone who doesn't fit in perfectly that I wonder how much of an effect more minor behavioral difficulties have in determining whether someone is able to keep a job and earn a living. An article I saw some time ago [I don't remember where; it may have been on TV] said that many welfare recipients suffer from depression. At first I thought that sounded obvious enough: who wouldn't be depressed when facing such a difficult situation? But the article went on to say that the depression may in fact have been the cause of the individuals' inability to earn enough money to make a living, and that some people who were identified and treated were able to go back to work.

"You just don't fit in." "You would be happier somewhere else." These are some of the stock phrases used by employers to fire people. They're meant to be platitudes, but they may be truer than we think: If you're unhappy and non-conforming, it's harder to get a job and keep one. Or if you have a bad attitude, are difficult to get along with, have a problem with authority.... How bad does someone's behavior have to get before he's thrown in prison for it?

+:|:+:+:|:+:+:|:+:+:|:+:+:|:+

^^^ December 2, 2003    Bureaucratic Hell

[Richard]
I cannot begin to describe the bureaucratic nightmare that I went through this morning just to chip off the proverbial tip of the iceberg of stuff I have to deal with right now. I had to run around town doing what I call "creative banking," trying to get temp agency paychecks into the bank as cash and cash into the bank too, while I also did tons of phoning and darting around in my effort to pay off three utilities, all of whom had threatened turnoff, and also tried to gather up my rent. On top of this, my state ID has expired, but different people at the DMV are telling me different stories about what identification I need to renew it.

Incidentally, I find this whole state ID business kind of curious... I never even learned to drive a car, nor do I really want to learn, unless I move to an isolated rural area, and even in that situation I would maybe try to figure out first if I can make do with my feet and/or a bicycle and commuter rails. Yet, even though I am 42 years old and have never driven a car in my life, I still need to go to the DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES in order to get what is known as a "non-driver's driver's license.” So, in order to be recognized as a real adult person in these United States, I have to pretend that I drive a car.

Anyway, it appears that I won't be able to get a new state ID until I get an actual Social Security card, which is something I haven't had in years. And who knows how long it will take to get a Social Security card.

Too bad all this is happening, because I was going to try to register at a poor person's dental clinic this week because there are pieces of tooth coming out in my food every night, and that is why I spent all weekend looking for all my pay stubs from three different temp agencies. But probably, in order to register, I will need a Social Security card and a state ID.

A couple of months ago, I walked into a poor person's health insurance office and tried to get that wonderfully hyped HMO-based subsidized health coverage known as Family Health Plus. But first they gave me a huge runaround, asking me to go all over town to get letters from those three temp agencies confirming that I worked on a temp basis and didn't earn a regular income...and then they told me that my irregular income was too confusing for them. I may have mentioned this before... They told me that they just couldn't figure out how to process me.

The DMV people told me most of the extra bureaucracy that I'm dealing with on the government side was put into place because of 9-11. Who knows what else I will have to deal with in our more "secure" state. (Maybe someone will delay my Social Security card and state ID because of my participation two years ago in anti-globalization protests...and probably, I shouldn’t be putting this on the Web, giving them any ideas.)

Anyway, my time is becoming even more limited thanks to the new bureaucratic nightmares. It's a good thing I didn't have to work tonight too, although this means I will have more difficulty paying my bills and more reason to rush my paychecks into the bank as cash (which I might not be able to do if I don't have a current state ID). If the journal has seemed a little slimmer this week, that is one reason. The other reason is that asfo_del skipped town. But I think she will be back later today or tomorrow sometime, and maybe she will post something while I am busy burning in bureaucratic hell.

&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&-&

^^^ December 1, 2003    Why I Didn't Make a Big Deal About Buy Nothing Day

[Richard]
Sometimes I participate in some capacity in Buy Nothing Day, that "anti-capitalist" holiday one day after Thanksgiving when activists try to get other people to join them in the effort not to buy anything all day. Last year, the Common Wheel Collective participated in the making of signs for, and promotion of, a rally that combined the Buy Nothing Day message with anti-sweatshop and anti-fur/defense-of-animals campaigns. These are all good causes (even though the animal rights issue can get a little hairy), so it provided enough incentive for us to get involved. Four years ago, Mike and I were both participants in a Reclaim the Streets Buy Nothing Day street party/blockade. This combined the issues of Buy Nothing Day with the issue of reclaiming public spaces and the anti-capitalist demos that were being planned for the meeting of the World Trade Organization in Seattle four days later. These reasons, put together, also comprised a compelling motive to participate.

But to me, especially in the present economic situation (and coming from my economic situation), the Buy Nothing Day effort by itself isn't totally compelling. If anybody asks me, I'll endorse it, but I won't get too excited about it, nor did I feel all that compelled to make a big deal about it in the journal on the day itself (especially since I didn't return from my parents' place in The Bronx until 3 am Friday morning).

The main reservation I have about Buy Nothing Day is that it is aimed mainly at getting affluent shoppers to abstain from taking part in a traditional shopping binge for one day out of the year. It doesn't do much to get people to curb their spending habits year-round, and it is aimed almost entirely at the middle class and the wealthy. (Note how Buy Nothing Day demonstrations often focus on the shopping thoroughfares that will guarantee the most publicity -- such as Fifth Avenue, in New York City -- which also draw the wealthiest consumers. This has been acknowledged to me in conversations I've had with Buy Nothing Day organizers. The biggest goal for the organizers is visibility, especially in the media (if possible), which necessarily means skipping the shoppers in less glamorous places.)

Buy Nothing Day was also created based on the premise that the day after Thanksgiving is the busiest shopping day of the year (though it isn't; it has actually ranked about fourth in recent years), and that getting people to stay home on this particular day will make a big dent in consumerism. But I think maybe this big dent isn't so big, considering that the shopping season that the day after Thanksgiving is supposed launch isn't what it used to be, as unemployment remains high while poverty continues to grow rapidly despite the bullshit being spread about a booming recovery.

One thing that we try to do with our anti-consumerist message in the Common Wheel Collective is help people to buy less every day. We do this not just to lecture the affluent to avoid shopping binges, but also to help people who are struggling to get by (just as we are) make the most out of a small income and resist the con artistry of those corporate hucksters who couldn't care less about whether people really can afford their products and services.

One reason I might actually think twice about urging people to stay home on Buy Nothing Day is that there are major bargains in the stores that day. This was probably the biggest incentive this year for participation in the post-Thanksgiving "shopping holiday." The way I see it, if people are absolutely going to buy something, whether it is out of pure necessity or to get holiday gifts, then they shouldn't be discouraged from hunting for a bargain. If they are willing to brave the awful crowds, lines, etc., to find that bargain, then all the power to them -- it's better that they pay less on November 28 than pay more on another day. So, especially for people struggling to get by, the Buy Nothing Day strategy can sort of backfire.

But the anti-consumerist message is certainly good, and it's good to counter the pro-consumerist propaganda that's always been so prevalent on the day after Thanksgiving. So, I'll give a nod to Buy Nothing Day -- good messages and good intentions, but not completely my thing, unless you can throw a few other items into the bargain.

%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%#%

[Continue to November Archive]