George Packer reports on how this campaign is playing out in Ohio and environs. Heavy stuff. If these folks are having such a tough time now, God help them if we go into severe recession or depression. Excerpt:
Barbie Snodgrass had agreed to meet me at a Kentucky Fried Chicken outlet, on a strip of fast-food restaurants and auto shops west of downtown Columbus, Ohio, but she didn't have much time to talk. Her shift as a receptionist at a medical clinic, which got her out of the house at six in the morning, had just ended, at three; the drive home, to a housing development in a working-class suburb south of the city, took half an hour. She then had a little more than an hour to eat, change clothes, let the dog out, check up on her sister's two teen-age daughters--Sierra and Ashley, who were under her care--and then drive back into Columbus, where she worked the evening shift cleaning the studios of a local television station, and where her day ended, at ten. She also worked some weekends. She was forty-two, single, overweight, and suffering from stomach pains.Snodgrass sat down at my table and refused the offer of a soft drink. She was wearing a drab ensemble of gray cotton sweatpants and a loose-fitting pale-yellow knit top, and her brown hair fell in bangs just above her eyes. I asked for her thoughts about the Presidential candidates, and she said, "Someone who makes two hundred or three hundred thousand a year, who eats a regular meal, who doesn't have to struggle, who doesn't worry if the lights are going to be turned out--if he doesn't walk in your shoes, he can't understand."
In Snodgrass's shoes, it hardly made sense to draw a paycheck. "You're working for what?" she asked. She hadn't finished college, and the two jobs that kept her "constantly moving" brought in a little more than forty thousand dollars a year, but after the mortgage (a thousand a month), car payments (three hundred and fifty), levies for supplies at the girls' public high school, fuel, electricity, stomach medicine, and a hundred dollars' worth of groceries each week (down from eight bags to four at Kroger's supermarket, because of inflation) there was basically nothing left to spend. She could cut corners--go out for a McDonald's Dollar Meal instead of spending seven dollars on a bag of potatoes and cooking at home. But that meant the end of any kind of family life for her nieces.
"These days, you have to struggle," she said. "As a kid, I used to be able to go to the movies or to the zoo. Now you can't take your children to the zoo or go to the movies, because you've got to think how you're going to put food on the table." Snodgrass's parents had raised four children on two modest incomes, without the ceaseless stress that she was enduring. But the two-parent family was now available only to the "very privileged." She said that she had ten good friends; eight of them were childless or, like her, unmarried with kids. "That's who's middle-class now," she said. "Two parents, two kids? That's over. People looked out for me. These kids nowadays don't have nobody to look out for them. You're one week away from (a) losing your job, or (b) not having a paycheck."

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Compassion should be the default reaction toward her.
Agreed, but what's compassionate about allowing her to continue in bad choices. This, I think, highlights the difference between liberals and conservatives (and libertarians), liberals seem to think that bad decisions should be devoid of bad consequences, conservatives think otherwise. Of course removing bad consequences from bad decisions means that the decisions aren't really bad anymore. Just ask an investment banker.
Larry and all,
As far as I can tell, Barbie's "bad (economic) choices" boil down mostly to taking responsibility for her sister's children. She has no legal responsibility for those girls, and if she didn't house and feed and provide for them she could probably quit one of those jobs of hers and live relatively comfortably. After all, Salamander, it wasn't Barbie who made a bad choice of a man, it was the sister. All Barbie did was make a bad choice for a sister.
Wait. We don't get to choose our siblings.
So, all you "Barbie got herself into this" folks, you'd think it a better choice for her and for everyone else if she let those girls go into foster care? Just trying to get a fix on the Republican position here.
As far as I can tell, Barbie's "bad (economic) choices" boil down mostly to taking responsibility for her sister's children.
And that decision, and I laud it, also has consequences. Making $40,000/year places her just about at the median for income earners in the US and easily in the top 5% globally. One should be able to survive easily on that amount, especially in a relatively low cost of living area like Columbus. It is not "compassionate" to allow someone to continue toward destruction, even if the advice hurts, "faithful are the wounds of a friend, but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful".
> But emergency funds are few and far between in the lower middle class,
> where they're struggling just to keep food on the table.
What does middle class mean in America? Here in Ireland I wouldn't consider someone struggling to put food on the table as middle class.
I wasn't speaking specifically of Barbie; I should have made that more clear, as they are not her children and we are not told what the specific situation is with her sister.
I was, however, responding to her statement that two-parent families are only for the privileged. My point remains the same: what is preventing poor people from getting married? Why exactly are there so many women having children with men who are absent or shiftless?
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.