4 ms·

Indeed. All the more reason not to buy one unless you're in rock solid financial condition (even then...). I guess I'm just having a hard time garnering sympat

Indeed. All the more reason not to buy one unless you're in rock solid financial condition (even then...). I guess I'm just having a hard time garnering sympathy for someone who displays such conspicuous consumption especially without the financial means to really pull it off. Their previous behavior is a HUGE part of what's wrong with US culture.

bradleysmith 12y ago
I understand. I share your feeling quite a bit. Upvoted you for clear and friendly discussion on a subject that generally evokes a lot of emotion. I wouldn't argue that the purchase of the car was a good financial decision. As a side note, I don't think buying a C-class Mercedes is EVER a good financial decision. The reactions to this article (or that OP experienced in the narrative) are a testament to the success of Mercedes establishing themselves as a luxury brand even though they sell econo-box line vehicles (top post right now puts this pretty well; this is a symbol of wealth, not actually much of an asset). I think the house was a worse decision, as it implies a longer confidence in earning potential; the car could have been paid off much more quickly, and we don't really know their earning power at the time of purchase (though I doubt it'd help the point of them being fiscally responsible). I think a big part of this article is trying to cast an empathetic light on people that end up in tough financial situations BECAUSE of bad financial decision, despite having come from opportunity. When considered clearly, even those impoverished that did not come from opportunity could be saddled with the blame of 'bad financial decisions', but just have many more justifications (that are more easily empathized with) for making the decisions they did. At some point or another, though, you are following the same mindset of the 'root beer police' in the line at the store, written about in the article. You are drawing a line saying 'you purchasing THAT is not responsible', and you feel justified in doing so because they are using public help. That's sort of the debate at hand here. Is the use of public funds an invitation, or justification, for judgement from others on your consumption? I believe that it is; if you are going to take money from the government, one cost you suffer will be unyielding judgement from others on what you do or do not buy. My point: not selling my old(er) Mercedes in lieu of taking food-stamps while I find another job might ACTUALLY be the best financial decision I can make, for a number of reasons. Whether or not I feel morally reprehensible about this is my own business, really; the assistance programs have their own requirements for eligibility and if I meet them, I meet them. Despite this, it is an invitation for judgement in the cultural climate in which we live, and that's just how that is.
- exstudent 12y ago
  Excellent response. Part of my reaction to this story is self-defense and fear. I live in the US and from birth we're inundated with narrative about how we should live and what we should strive for. The nice house, nice car, nice job... "Nice" being defined externally, always. If you don't want to slip into the pre-carved paths, you need to stay vigilant. In a sense, shaming this story is a fight against that narrative. By buying into it, the author reenforced it and then suffered the consequences when reality struck. Situations like this are obviously very personal and it's hard to judge on an individual level but in aggregate what they have done is causing damage beyond their own life. Not just the public funds they're now using, but by perpetuating a culture that the author presents as not only acceptable but desirable. From the car to the house to the journalism degree. No choice showed any foresight and unfortunately large swaths of our population are living this life everyday. At some point very soon, all of this story is going to have to come to an end and I'm not sure what will replace it. I personally believe that having (and keeping) sharp technical skills, being entrepreneurial and keeping your costs well below your means provide an answer. In short, it's going to be an interesting decade to come.
  - bradleysmith 12y ago
    I agree that this narrative is a harbinger of very troubled times for our country. I disagree, however, that shaming the story is fighting against that narrative. Empathy for individual decisions does more to effect systemic change, if by no other mechanism than allowing you a clearer understanding of why those decisions were made. Darlena and her husband making these decisions will not effect the system as a whole, and neither will vilifying them. Understanding why they did what they did, and educating others on how their decisions hurt them will effect change. The 'this could happen to anyone' tone irks me as well, but in my experience, it is also quite human. The view from hindsight is remarkably clear. The OP was probably more aware than anyone as they opened themselves up to fragility with each financial decision. Unplanned pregnancies (that double in expense w/ twins), jobs in new towns, unexpected job losses, DO happen. When they do, you there is rarely a 'whoa, we've taken on too much debt, this is not sustainable' moment that you can just turn it around. Horse was out of the barn. an interesting and related read posted further down this thread was a fantastic perspective (though I'm not sure if I agree with it entirely): http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...

bradleysmith 12y ago

I understand. I share your feeling quite a bit. Upvoted you for clear and friendly discussion on a subject that generally evokes a lot of emotion. I wouldn't argue that the purchase of the car was a good financial decision. As a side note, I don't think buying a C-class Mercedes is EVER a good financial decision. The reactions to this article (or that OP experienced in the narrative) are a testament to the success of Mercedes establishing themselves as a luxury brand even though they sell econo-box line vehicles (top post right now puts this pretty well; this is a symbol of wealth, not actually much of an asset). I think the house was a worse decision, as it implies a longer confidence in earning potential; the car could have been paid off much more quickly, and we don't really know their earning power at the time of purchase (though I doubt it'd help the point of them being fiscally responsible). I think a big part of this article is trying to cast an empathetic light on people that end up in tough financial situations BECAUSE of bad financial decision, despite having come from opportunity. When considered clearly, even those impoverished that did not come from opportunity could be saddled with the blame of 'bad financial decisions', but just have many more justifications (that are more easily empathized with) for making the decisions they did. At some point or another, though, you are following the same mindset of the 'root beer police' in the line at the store, written about in the article. You are drawing a line saying 'you purchasing THAT is not responsible', and you feel justified in doing so because they are using public help. That's sort of the debate at hand here. Is the use of public funds an invitation, or justification, for judgement from others on your consumption? I believe that it is; if you are going to take money from the government, one cost you suffer will be unyielding judgement from others on what you do or do not buy. My point: not selling my old(er) Mercedes in lieu of taking food-stamps while I find another job might ACTUALLY be the best financial decision I can make, for a number of reasons. Whether or not I feel morally reprehensible about this is my own business, really; the assistance programs have their own requirements for eligibility and if I meet them, I meet them. Despite this, it is an invitation for judgement in the cultural climate in which we live, and that's just how that is.

exstudent 12y ago
Excellent response. Part of my reaction to this story is self-defense and fear. I live in the US and from birth we're inundated with narrative about how we should live and what we should strive for. The nice house, nice car, nice job... "Nice" being defined externally, always. If you don't want to slip into the pre-carved paths, you need to stay vigilant. In a sense, shaming this story is a fight against that narrative. By buying into it, the author reenforced it and then suffered the consequences when reality struck. Situations like this are obviously very personal and it's hard to judge on an individual level but in aggregate what they have done is causing damage beyond their own life. Not just the public funds they're now using, but by perpetuating a culture that the author presents as not only acceptable but desirable. From the car to the house to the journalism degree. No choice showed any foresight and unfortunately large swaths of our population are living this life everyday. At some point very soon, all of this story is going to have to come to an end and I'm not sure what will replace it. I personally believe that having (and keeping) sharp technical skills, being entrepreneurial and keeping your costs well below your means provide an answer. In short, it's going to be an interesting decade to come.
- bradleysmith 12y ago
  I agree that this narrative is a harbinger of very troubled times for our country. I disagree, however, that shaming the story is fighting against that narrative. Empathy for individual decisions does more to effect systemic change, if by no other mechanism than allowing you a clearer understanding of why those decisions were made. Darlena and her husband making these decisions will not effect the system as a whole, and neither will vilifying them. Understanding why they did what they did, and educating others on how their decisions hurt them will effect change. The 'this could happen to anyone' tone irks me as well, but in my experience, it is also quite human. The view from hindsight is remarkably clear. The OP was probably more aware than anyone as they opened themselves up to fragility with each financial decision. Unplanned pregnancies (that double in expense w/ twins), jobs in new towns, unexpected job losses, DO happen. When they do, you there is rarely a 'whoa, we've taken on too much debt, this is not sustainable' moment that you can just turn it around. Horse was out of the barn. an interesting and related read posted further down this thread was a fantastic perspective (though I'm not sure if I agree with it entirely): http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stamps.html http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...