4 ms·

For some $44 is a lot. Jack Monroe was poor and a blogger. She wrote a powerful piece about it once: ( http://agirlcalledjack.com/2012/07/30/hunger-hurts/ http

by rmc 12y ago

For some $44 is a lot. Jack Monroe was poor and a blogger. She wrote a powerful piece about it once: ( http://agirlcalledjack.com/2012/07/30/hunger-hurts/ http://agirlcalledjack.com/2012/07/30/hunger-hurts/ ): > This morning, small boy had one of the last Weetabix, mashed with water, with a glass of tap water to wash it down with. ‘Where’s Mummys breakfast?’ he asks, big blue eyes and two year old concern. I tell him I’m not hungry, but the rumblings of my stomach call me a liar. But these are the things that we do. > ... > Then you start to take lightbulbs out. If they aren’t there, you can’t turn them on. > ... > Poverty is the sinking feeling when your small boy finishes his one weetabix and says ‘more mummy, bread and jam please mummy’ as you’re wondering whether to take the TV or the guitar to the pawn shop first, and how to tell him that there is no bread or jam. These are the people who can't afford $44.

julienwaterh 12y ago
Jack Monroe has a political agenda behind her claims. Note that she voluntarily gave up a full time public-sector job (emergency services dispatcher) with a decent salary to go on benefits. Why does she have a child if she doesn't have the income to support them? Where is the father?
- rmc 12y ago
  "agenda": The word you use when you want to dismiss someone's issues without actually addressing them. Most of your questions are answered here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard-littlejohn-wrong-about-jack-monroe-daily-mail http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard... "Why does she have a child?" News for you: Sometimes people's circumstances can change. It's impossible to be sure you're income will be stable for 20 years.
  - jerf 12y ago
    I was actually surprised when I read the summary, because that would be a surprising level of poverty in the US. If anything, we are unnecessarily generous with the food stamps here. (Which I am not necessarily complaining about, just observing that they are relatively easy to get.) And lo, it turns out this was in Britain, so saying they can't afford $44 is sort of deceptive. I well believe she couldn't afford £44. There's a certain segment in American politics who really doesn't like to talk about this, but for all the drama, the poor in America are still better off than they are in almost any other country, which, yes, includes all (AFAIK) the European countries, and while that doesn't prove anything about what we do or do not need to do in that area, it does suggest that rhetoric about poverty in the US can occasionally get overblown. (It's a political thing where, let's be honest, there's a lot of incentives to keep promising more. I started listing them all out and the list of people interested in increasing poverty payouts got too long for a parenthetical. Again, not necessarily a complaint, but let's not pretend here that these interests don't exist. If you'd like, celebrate that often comes from something so crass as base political pandering ends up benefiting so many people, instead of a narrow interest group.) I live in the Midwest and I don't know anyone living in abject poverty, but I know a lot of struggling families (as in, friends of the family that we socialize with frequently, not just "people I've heard of"). There's plenty of them that could afford $44, if you were somehow bringing something to them that was worth it. Which is, after all, the entire point here, to bring them something that will somehow improve their lives more than the cost of buying it, not to just pointlessly drain their wallets. This may very well only work right now in the US, where, yes, even the poor and struggling can afford $44, if it's worth it somehow. And on the flip side, while it's perhaps harder than you might initially think to bring $44 of value to somebody, it is also a very feasible goal. You don't have to work out how to bring them $5000 of value. (Although if you can somehow, awesome. That said the only thing that leaps to mind where you can pay back thousands for a small investment is budgeting apps, and that space is covered. The problem there wouldn't so much be writing the app as getting people to use it.)
    - lmm 12y ago
      > There's a certain segment in American politics who really doesn't like to talk about this, but for all the drama, the poor in America are still better off than they are in almost any other country, which, yes, includes all (AFAIK) the European countries, and while that doesn't prove anything about what we do or do not need to do in that area, it does suggest that rhetoric about poverty in the US can occasionally get overblown. Really? My understanding was that without state-subsidized healthcare, many don't have access to non-emergency healthcare, and so miss out on the kind of preventative measures that can do a lot for your general health. So while the American poor might be wealthier in some narrow sense than the European poor, their quality of life is worse than in nations with state healthcare.
      - jerf 12y ago
        The propaganda about the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated for various political reasons. Note the difference between "overstated" and "false", and I'll even more explicitly say that that isn't proof that everything's hunky dory and nothing needs to be changed. But it's hardly like it's paradise for the poor in Europe and in the US you're just left out on your own... it's way more nuanced than that. (Everybody's books have to balance.)
        MaxBarraclough 12y ago
        > The propaganda about the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated for various political reasons. Brit here. Enlighten me as to how not being able to afford to visit a GP is 'overstated'. As I understand it, if you are poor in the USA, there's a real chance you won't be able to pay for the pills you need, or for mental health treatment, etc. That simply doesn't happen here in the UK. > Everybody's books have to balance. But that doesn't mean anything. Different countries invest different amounts in welfare.
        jimbokun 12y ago
        Can't speak for jerf, but the "overstated" part may relate to the definition of "poor". The U.S. government does provide health care programs for people below a certain income threshold. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid The trouble comes when you are just over the threshold, but still can't afford health insurance, or just didn't bother to sign up. Or have insurance, but the part it didn't cover bankrupts you anyway. So if we exclude those people from the "poor" category, perhaps "the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated" makes a little more sense.
- pjc50 12y ago
  Are you seriously suggesting that she's starving herself and her child deliberately in order to score some sort of political point, and if so what point would that be? Details are slightly unclear because not everyone's employment and sexual history is on the internet for the benefit of their book reviewers, but it appears that the shiftwork required of the job made it extremely hard to find childcare, and the cost of childcare+commuting to work made working non-viable. I've no idea where the father is, you could ask about for him? As for the "shouldn't have child" argument, you can't return children for a refund when you become unemployed nor can you ebay them to recoup your costs.
  - rmc 12y ago
    I've no idea where the father is She addresses this in a Guardian article: > When I returned to work after maternity leave, my relationship broke down, and I found it impossible to cover the irregular night shifts 30 miles from home with any form of childcare. Childminders just don't work all night. Her son's father did and does look after him, but at the time it was impossible to match our work shifts up with friends, family and childcare to cover my working hours. Because he works too. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard-littlejohn-wrong-about-jack-monroe-daily-mail http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard...

by rmc 12y ago

julienwaterh 12y ago

Jack Monroe has a political agenda behind her claims. Note that she voluntarily gave up a full time public-sector job (emergency services dispatcher) with a decent salary to go on benefits. Why does she have a child if she doesn't have the income to support them? Where is the father?

rmc 12y ago
"agenda": The word you use when you want to dismiss someone's issues without actually addressing them. Most of your questions are answered here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard-littlejohn-wrong-about-jack-monroe-daily-mail http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard... "Why does she have a child?" News for you: Sometimes people's circumstances can change. It's impossible to be sure you're income will be stable for 20 years.
- jerf 12y ago
  I was actually surprised when I read the summary, because that would be a surprising level of poverty in the US. If anything, we are unnecessarily generous with the food stamps here. (Which I am not necessarily complaining about, just observing that they are relatively easy to get.) And lo, it turns out this was in Britain, so saying they can't afford $44 is sort of deceptive. I well believe she couldn't afford £44. There's a certain segment in American politics who really doesn't like to talk about this, but for all the drama, the poor in America are still better off than they are in almost any other country, which, yes, includes all (AFAIK) the European countries, and while that doesn't prove anything about what we do or do not need to do in that area, it does suggest that rhetoric about poverty in the US can occasionally get overblown. (It's a political thing where, let's be honest, there's a lot of incentives to keep promising more. I started listing them all out and the list of people interested in increasing poverty payouts got too long for a parenthetical. Again, not necessarily a complaint, but let's not pretend here that these interests don't exist. If you'd like, celebrate that often comes from something so crass as base political pandering ends up benefiting so many people, instead of a narrow interest group.) I live in the Midwest and I don't know anyone living in abject poverty, but I know a lot of struggling families (as in, friends of the family that we socialize with frequently, not just "people I've heard of"). There's plenty of them that could afford $44, if you were somehow bringing something to them that was worth it. Which is, after all, the entire point here, to bring them something that will somehow improve their lives more than the cost of buying it, not to just pointlessly drain their wallets. This may very well only work right now in the US, where, yes, even the poor and struggling can afford $44, if it's worth it somehow. And on the flip side, while it's perhaps harder than you might initially think to bring $44 of value to somebody, it is also a very feasible goal. You don't have to work out how to bring them $5000 of value. (Although if you can somehow, awesome. That said the only thing that leaps to mind where you can pay back thousands for a small investment is budgeting apps, and that space is covered. The problem there wouldn't so much be writing the app as getting people to use it.)
  - lmm 12y ago
    > There's a certain segment in American politics who really doesn't like to talk about this, but for all the drama, the poor in America are still better off than they are in almost any other country, which, yes, includes all (AFAIK) the European countries, and while that doesn't prove anything about what we do or do not need to do in that area, it does suggest that rhetoric about poverty in the US can occasionally get overblown. Really? My understanding was that without state-subsidized healthcare, many don't have access to non-emergency healthcare, and so miss out on the kind of preventative measures that can do a lot for your general health. So while the American poor might be wealthier in some narrow sense than the European poor, their quality of life is worse than in nations with state healthcare.
    - jerf 12y ago
      The propaganda about the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated for various political reasons. Note the difference between "overstated" and "false", and I'll even more explicitly say that that isn't proof that everything's hunky dory and nothing needs to be changed. But it's hardly like it's paradise for the poor in Europe and in the US you're just left out on your own... it's way more nuanced than that. (Everybody's books have to balance.)
      - MaxBarraclough 12y ago
        > The propaganda about the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated for various political reasons. Brit here. Enlighten me as to how not being able to afford to visit a GP is 'overstated'. As I understand it, if you are poor in the USA, there's a real chance you won't be able to pay for the pills you need, or for mental health treatment, etc. That simply doesn't happen here in the UK. > Everybody's books have to balance. But that doesn't mean anything. Different countries invest different amounts in welfare.
        jimbokun 12y ago
        Can't speak for jerf, but the "overstated" part may relate to the definition of "poor". The U.S. government does provide health care programs for people below a certain income threshold. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid The trouble comes when you are just over the threshold, but still can't afford health insurance, or just didn't bother to sign up. Or have insurance, but the part it didn't cover bankrupts you anyway. So if we exclude those people from the "poor" category, perhaps "the poor's lack of access to health care is also overstated" makes a little more sense.
pjc50 12y ago
Are you seriously suggesting that she's starving herself and her child deliberately in order to score some sort of political point, and if so what point would that be? Details are slightly unclear because not everyone's employment and sexual history is on the internet for the benefit of their book reviewers, but it appears that the shiftwork required of the job made it extremely hard to find childcare, and the cost of childcare+commuting to work made working non-viable. I've no idea where the father is, you could ask about for him? As for the "shouldn't have child" argument, you can't return children for a refund when you become unemployed nor can you ebay them to recoup your costs.
- rmc 12y ago
  I've no idea where the father is She addresses this in a Guardian article: > When I returned to work after maternity leave, my relationship broke down, and I found it impossible to cover the irregular night shifts 30 miles from home with any form of childcare. Childminders just don't work all night. Her son's father did and does look after him, but at the time it was impossible to match our work shifts up with friends, family and childcare to cover my working hours. Because he works too. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard-littlejohn-wrong-about-jack-monroe-daily-mail http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/richard...