Skip to main content

Wanting more for the working poor

 2013 is the year many Americans discovered the crisis of the working poor. It turns out it’s also the crisis of the welfare poor. That’s tough for us: Americans notoriously hate welfare, unless it’s called something else and/or benefits us personally. We think it’s for slackers and moochers and people who won’t pull their weight.
So we’re not sure how to handle the fact that a quarter of people who have jobs today make so little money that they also receive some form of public assistance, or welfare – a proportion that’s much higher in some of the fastest growing sectors of the workforce. Or that 60 percent of able-bodied adult food-stamp recipients are employed. (“Poverty nation,” Joan Walsh, Salon.com)

- - - - -

DanielGree

There are two aspects that have come together.  One is punitive Calvinism which I have been writing about for years. The other is the lefts denigration of work. There was a time when work working for fast food places was smeared not because of its pay but because it was beneath the poor.  It infuriated working class tax payers.

Now the long term unemployed and underemployed and the Republican war on the working poor has shifted the equation.  The idea that the new populism will change the balance in favor of welfare is very unlikely.

Re: There was a time when work working for fast food places was smeared not because of its pay but because it was beneath the poor.  It infuriated working class tax payers.
Fast food is beneath people. Speed repetition — what a waste of life! And people who find this objectionable aren't being braked by punitive Calvinism — a belief system — but because they're out of families who've only evolved so much over the millenniums that they still only conditionally love their kids. Kids out of these kinds of families, kids who have parents that still so much need love themselves that they expect their kids to devote themselves to them, begin to feel abandoned if in life they let themselves have too many good things. The prosperous postwar years were leading many to feel this abandonment, and so they willed in awful leaders who were going to push them back into dependency so they could feel like good, loyal, unspoiled children and closer to their parents again. 
America's problem has been for a long time that it is just flooded by many of Europeans least loved. Lars Von Trier has said that, and he's right. Those nations that are more actively supporting all their people aren't that way because they're more homogenous. They're that way because they're out of more loving strains of humanity, with each generation improving on the love given to the next. Go to a liberal part of New York and watch parents with their children. Listening, engaging, supporting -- and you're seeing children receive even more love than their still fairly well-loved parents did. You're seeing evolution. Now go somewhere else, and watch -- and you're seeing children existing as a sop for depression or the like. You're seeing people who will come to see themselves as bad and who will view enlightened progressives as probably doing Satan's work. It's not an ideology thing, but a brain thing. Owing to crappy childhoods, their brains developed less ideally and much differently.
I think that Americans are going to work their way into believing they deserve a living wage. But this will occur only because they're in sync, in fidelity, to regressive parental/ancestor attitudes. It'll come, along with increased homophobia, racism, and suspicion of outsiders. We're probably 30 years away from a time when American society improves out of progressives leading the way and pulling everyone along with them. Another 1960s, that is.  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Superimposing another "fourth-wall" Deadpool

I'd like to superimpose the fourth-wall breaking Deadpool that I'd like to have seen in the movie. In my version, he'd break out of the action at some point to discuss with us the following:
1) He'd point out that all the trouble the movie goes to to ensure that the lead actress is never seen completely naked—no nipples shown—in this R-rated movie was done so that later when we suddenly see enough strippers' completely bared breasts that we feel that someone was making up for lost time, we feel that a special, strenuous effort has been made to keep her from a certain fate—one the R-rating would even seemed to have called for, necessitated, even, to properly feed the audience expecting something extra for the movie being more dependent on their ticket purchases. That is, protecting the lead actress was done to legitimize thinking of those left casually unprotected as different kinds of women—not as worthy, not as human.   


2) When Wade/Deadpool and Vanessa are excha…

"The Zookeeper's Wife" as historical romance

A Polish zoologist and his wife maintain a zoo which is utopia, realized. The people who work there are blissfully satisfied and happy. The caged animals aren't distraught but rather, very satisfied. These animals have been very well attended to, and have developed so healthily for it that they almost seem proud to display what is distinctively excellent about them for viewers to enjoy. But there is a shadow coming--Nazis! The Nazis literally blow apart much of this happy configuration. Many of the animals die. But the zookeeper's wife is a prize any Nazi officer would covet, and the Nazi's chief zoologist is interested in claiming her for his own. So if there can be some pretence that would allow for her and her husband to keep their zoo in piece rather than be destroyed for war supplies, he's willing to concede it.

The zookeeper and his wife want to try and use their zoo to house as many Jews as they can. They approach the stately quarters of Hitler's zoologist …

"Life" as political analogy, coming to you via Breitbart News

Immediately after seeing the film, I worked over whether or not the movie works as something the alt-right would produce to alienate us from the left. Mostly the film does work this way  -- as a sort of, de facto, Breitbart production -- I decided, though it's not entirely slam-dunk. There is no disparagement evident for the crew of the space station being a multicultural mix, for instance. Race is not invisible in the film; it feels conspicuous at times, like when the Japanese crew member is shown looking at his black wife on video conference; but the film maker, wherever he was actually raised, seems like someone who was a longtime habitat of a multicultural milieu, some place like London, and likes things that way. But the film cannot convince only as macabre relating to our current fascination with the possibility of life on Mars -- what it no doubt pretends to be doing -- because the idea of “threat” does not permeate this interest at all, whereas it absolutely saturates our …