Pension or Penitentiary?

Talk about a cry for help: Timothy J. Bowers robbed a Columbus OH bank of $80, handed the money over to a security guard, and waited for the police to come and arrest him. In court on October 11, he pleaded guilty and told the judge that he would like a three-year sentence – just enough time to get him to the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits. The judge graciously obliged, demonstrating compassionate conservativism at its warm-hearted best.

Bowers, almost 63 years old, is no wacko. He passed a court-ordered psychological exam and explained that he had not been able to find a new job since his old one ended when his employer’s company closed in 2003. “At my age,” he said, “The jobs available to me are minimum wage jobs,” adding that “There is age discrimination out there.”

Bowers had hit another kind of “doughnut hole,” like the one that plagues Medicare recipients: He was “too old” for the above-minimum wage workforce and too young for Social Security. Thanks to rampant age discrimination, “too old” can mean as young as 45, leaving a 20 year gap before Social Security kicks in.

Leaving aside the obvious disadvantages of incarceration – having to pee in public, being unable to send out for pizza, etc. – Bowers made a perfectly rational choice. The minimum wage in Ohio is $5.15 an hour, or $824 a month before taxes, which won’t get you much of a dwelling space in Columbus, at least not if you intend to maintain a regular schedule of meals. Prison, on the other hand, offers a free bed, free food, and, however inadequate, free health care. We can expect a rash of similar bank robberies as the elderly and the middle aged seek ways to wait out the years between the onset of age discrimination and the arrival of their first Social Security check.

There’s nothing new about using about prison as a solution to poverty. Over 2 million Americans are presently incarcerated, the great majority of them from the lowest income brackets. In fact, incarceration is expanding as the welfare state shrinks: while the U.S. offers 2 million prison beds, it provides public housing to only 1.3 million households, and that number is dropping rapidly. Bowers could have applied for a Section 8 housing voucher, but the waiting list for those exceeds, in some cities, his three-year prison term.

In short, we are reaching the point, if we have not passed it already, where the largest public housing program in America will be our penitentiary system.

If Bowers’ choice was rational, the same cannot be said of our social policies. The cost of incarcerating an elderly inmate is about $69,000 a year. A compassionate – or merely rational—state would give Bowers a stipend to live on and save its prison beds for actual bad guys.

Comments

[Ryan M. Powell]

No need to misquote me or quote me out of context. All my words are already on this page, in context.

[Ryan M. Powell]

Yes, I am naive and arrogant because I care about people with whom I have almost nothing in common, including victims of age discrimination. (Did you skip that part or is objectivity just completely alien to you?)

You're trying so hard to portray me as if I've chosen one side over another, but you can't do it because I don't play that game.

You just go ahead and keep seeing what you want to see. I'll keep looking at the whole picture.

For the record, I think the guy is brilliant for doing what he did. I just don't buy his age discrimination excuse because, whether he realizes it or not, that's the reality of life in 21st century America, regardless of your age. And if he can't figure that out, it's either because he's been living the life of ease his whole life or he's just totally stupid. Welcome to the club, asshole.

http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[barbsright]

Ryan's right. The 'Crybaby Boomers' made the mess. They ignored the economic structual design flaws in Medicare and Medicaid when they had a chance to fix them. Because of that now any increase in income for the 'average worker' is eaten up by health insurance premiums. I know this because I studied economics in college. US News and World Report had an article looking at a Gen X politician that basically said, 'the 'Baby Boomer' politicians disappointed us so maybe Gen X will be better!' Both Clinton and Bush are 'Baby Boomers', and Yale graduates. Enough said. So much for the Meritocracy!!!!

[lc2]

Ryan, again, you cannot have it both ways. The most skillfull politician could not weasel out of the comments you committed to this blog forum. You cannot say, "I think age discrimination is a problem" in one breath and "Most people who cry 'Age Discrimination' have never experienced adversity" in the next, and expect people to know where you're coming from. Next time, think before you post.

What Ryan and barbsright need to realize is that when someone is hungry, cold, and/or homeless or in danger of being that way very soon, they are not in a position to be philosophical about which generation is responsible for systemic problems. They do not have the luxury of doing this, nor will it change the fact that they're on the verge of or already experiencing cold and hunger. It's also probably safe to say that if they're living that close to the edge, they've never had the power to be responsible in a direct or indirect way for the lack of forethought of their leaders.

So let's add the generation wars to the list of identity politics movements that divide people who are in fact economic allies. Who's benefiting while we sit here having petty arguments over which generation has been more pampered? Perhaps the people being truly pampered as they shuttle between spa resorts and vacation homes, Lake Como and Lake Tahoe? I'll bet they're not too concerned about who's more to blame for Medicaid and Medicare.

[Ryan M. Powell]

lc2, you can go ahead and remain loyal to one extreme viewpoint or another, disregarding every valid point that contradicts your unwavering, all-knowing stance. I don't care.

Yes, I CAN have it both ways because my mind is open enough to consider every angle carefully without just lumping everything on either one side or the other. Conversely, you and Jacqueline share the mentality of "If you're not 100% with me, you're my enemy," which really doesn't do you any good. It just makes new enemies, asshole.

Why aren't you attacking me for admitting that my white skin has given me privileges I don't necessarily deserve? Why aren't you attacking me for admitting such privileges are unjust? That's not a very self-serving argument, now, is it? What if I also claim that I've faced discrimination in the job market? Can I have this one both ways, or is this also impossible in your polarized world?

Apparently you cannot comprehend the idea that anyone might be able to speak from a point of view that does not serve their own self-interests. You're trying to make believe I crusade against the 50+ crowd, but it's simply not true, and my words are right here for everyone to see, along with my real name.

What's your point? Do you feel incomplete when someone dares to challenge you and call you on your bullshit? Does it make you feel good to carefully select a small sample of someone's rhetoric and re-present it in a manner that appears to say something completely different than what they actually said? If you're a guy, is it because you have a tiny pecker? Were you the Golden Boy high school quarterback? Is your dad out of work or something? And why don't you sign your real name, wussy?

You are obviously "educated" and possess a large capacity for information storage, but you display no critical thinking skills. Information is not knowledge. You refuse to meet anyone halfway or even consider the possibility that you might just be full of it, which will probably come back to haunt you someday. And when it does, you're going to blame the people who finally refused to put up with your shit because you know you're more deserving than everyone else.

There's nothing wrong with having a big ego. But you have a fragile ego. That's scary.

http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[Jacqueline]

Lc2 is right.

To Ryan and Barbsright, you both need to recognize a few things:

1). While MANY Boommers have contributed to the current state of affairs such as electing bozos who sold them a big-ass lemon on union-busting, classism, NAFTA and globalization - resulting in the off-shoring millions of jobs, there are MANY MORE who did not because they were not in positions of being able to be political, spare lots of time for researching issues and the like because they were poor and left out then - and are even poorer and more marginalized now.

2). There are many Boomers, Gen-Xer's and younger Gen-Yer's who got theirs and don't give a fuck about those of us Gen-Xer's, Gen-Yer's and Boomers who never got ours - and never will. Those who got theirs are most likely to be quite content with the status quo and bitch about paying more in taxes to help the have-nots (of ALL ages) so that ALL can have healthcare, a roof and good food.

3). As far as who to blame for Medicare and Medicaid: It doesn't matter to those of us struggling on the edge who have NO health insruance and can't afford it, suffering in poverty after having to age in poverty due to NEVER getting a chance for a good job.

Lastly Ryan, this post is to you: You cited alot of "isms" responsible for people being wrongfully disenfranchized in this country. And those "isms" - including age discrimination - are NOT excuses. They are means and tools of the "haves" and "have-mores" to keep the rest of us down with zilch and frozen in "our places" beneath them, fighting over the meager scraps that fall from their tables.

Now I am going to add one to your list: Classism. Check out Barb's guest blogger Jerold Burrell's post called "The Corporate Ghetto" and kindly read other posters experiences there.
In fact, I would say that of all the "isms", Classism is probably the root cause of the rest and the basis for most economic injustices of today.

Read my post on my experience with getting screwed over by a 57 yr old Baby Boomer on the ONE job I was FINALLY offered in Nov 2004 after graduating college at age 35 (which I am in the hole for by $54,000 that I can't repay) in my endeavors to do "all the right things".

The 57 yr old woman was an anti-Semite who thought that "Jews have all the money" so as a Jew I shouldn't be poor and need a job. She got me fired because she was insecure and greedy, even though I had helped her out when she feared getting fired herself for failing to produce. She was eventually let go when the company folded a year later. But I am sure she wasn't as bad off as we were because at least she was able to get unemployment benefits - unlike me.

Plus she had a well-established 24 yr old daughter helping her out with the mortgage payments - unlike me. And since she and the rest of that office clique who ran over everyone else roughshod at that company, were all from the comfortable upper-middle class in a tight community here in a small town like Erie, PA, other companies offering positions at decent wages absorbed them into their fold - even though she and her co-horts had less insurance knowledge and experience than I did. I on the other hand, as well as a 47 yr old white male and a few black former welfare moms trying to get out of poverty - were ALL left out in the cold without a chance for anything at remaining companies in town - like PA Blue Cross Highmark, State Farm, and Erie Insurance Exchange.

Also, here in Erie and other areas as well, it is no secret that companies "poverty profile" job applicants so that those from the poorer side of town never get chances - no matter what they do to make themselves "worthy" of a chance for a good job. It had been like that since way before NAFTA, CAFTA and the 9/11 attacks. It was like that since my mother (a poor Baby Boomer) was your age.

Thus, it can be safely concluded that the biggest "ism" we should be looking at is Classism if we need to point any fingers of blame and indictment. Classism knows no race, gender, creed, nationality, religion or age. The very rich want to keep their narrow little circle closed which means having to keep the majority of others without the opportunities to climb the socio-economic ladder. The middle-class have always looked down on the poor because they were always an insecure lot who feared they would be displaced by those with less, as evidenced by the refusal of middle-class HR managers to hire someone who is disadvantaged in a good job that they deserve a chance for, and those running these office cliques like where I briefly worked who seek to eliminate anyone they deem beneath them that they don't want to have to rub elbows with.
If you think this is BS, check out the book " The Status Seekers" written by Vance Packard. It is out of print but should be available at your local library. Mr. Packard predicted the social status straining back in 1957 (when he wrote this book) would end up resulting in the economic misery we have today for so many people. He predicted it would happen within one generation, that it would be the Baby Boomers who would be left out in the cold as they grew up and fought for a place in society. It actually happened in two, as many Boomers, Gen-Xer's and those younger than us are now experiencing.

Q.E.D. (quod erata demonstratum)

Jacqueline S. Homan

[lc2]

Ryan, I would try to stop you, but you've pretty much already hung yourself. Regardless of context -- which does not bolster your claims anyway -- you cannot go around making inflammatory statements like "Most people who cry age discimination have never experienced adversity" and expect sympathy from others when they take you at your word.

Interestingly, your presumptions about my identity are all wrong, but your tone is hostile enough to confirm my sense that signing my real name is a bad idea.

BTW, the last paragraph of my post was a stab at finding common ground and pointing out that all of us here (assuming no one on this forum is an aristocrat) are vulnerable to the ebbs and flows of the economy. But I stand by my statement that being able to consider this all philosophically is a luxury many of our fellow citizens can't afford -- literally -- to do.

[jm]

A few years ago, when I was in the depths of despair, a friend told me to keep hanging in there. "At least you didn't resort to crime!"

Haha. I actually thought about it. I can't afford to go back to college, yet felons are spending their time getting degrees - sometimes two. All at the taxpayers'expense! (And where are they going to use their new-found knowledge?)

Maybe this older man had the right idea, :-)

[barbsright]

Jacqueline, I have mentioned before that I also live in PA. I was in first grade at a school in a small town in West Virginia. I never met any snitty, obnoxious, egotistical, cliquish students there. But, when we moved to Lancaster PA, it was as if we hit the 'mother load'! It came as no surprise to me when the prison torturers in Iraq turned out to be from PA, while the 'whistle blower' was from West Virginia. As I have said to you before: MOVE!!!! Losers hang out with losers. Erie and Lancaster have a lot of them. Why suffer fools anymore? As for IC2 and your critiques of my post holding the 'Crybaby Boomers' to account for their lousy leadership, all I can say is: Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade!!! President Johnson can be held accountable for the Vietnam war and Medicare/Medcaid design flaws, but neither Mrs. Clinton, or President Bush has learned from the past. Typical 'Crybaby Boomers' they have to do it their way! Which is not necessarily the right way! If this failure of leadership was just my veiw on the 'Boomers' I would not have written my post, but it was the article in US News and World Report that made me realize I was not alone in my thinking. Yes there are poor 'Boomers' and those who did/do not take part in the political process (just like every other generation group), but the ones that do take part, by sheer numbers, will dominate politics for many years to come. We have to face the truth that Americans pay more then enough in taxes, but the systems their taxes support are badly designed and run. It is like an unisulated house with an inefficient oil burner. The money goes up the chimney. We need leaders who can fix the system , and sadly the 'Boomers' cannot produce them!!!

[Ryan M. Powell]

Jacqueline,

(No hostility intended here, OK.)

I was going to step away from this discussion for a while (or forever), but I felt the need to respond just one more time.

You really should re-read my posts CAREFULLY because, whether you realize it or not, you and I pretty much see things the same. However, for some reason, you have repeatedly misquoted me and accused me of saying (or meaning) things I never said (or meant). The thing is, I don't speak in riddles. My words do not require interpretation or translation. Maybe the rest of society speaks in self-serving Bullshit language, but I don't.

If you really believe, for example, that I said we should shove older people out of the workforce and replace them with youngsters, you simply made it up in your head. In reality I did not say it, I did not imply it, and I don't believe it.

This is the case with almost everything you've said about me. The amazing thing, though, is that each time you've accused me of saying all the stuff I never said, you've then proceded to put me in my place by saying almost the same damn things I did say. (Right now I'm wondering how you're going to twist this comment.)

I am not your enemy, J; I'm your peer.

http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[Ryan M. Powell]

Barbsright,

When I said "People over the age of 50 have had 30+ years to prevent this shit," I WAS NOT talking about politicians. I was talking about the regular American citizens who voted them into office and kept them in office, disregarding for decades the fact that they have not represented the interests of the American people.

The United States of America is a representative democracy. If our government fails to represent us, the regular folks, we have only ourselves to blame. (But hell, let's blame someone else anyway. That's the American way.)

So everyone make sure to go out and fire all these Republican criminals in a couple weeks. And when the next election comes up, vote against every incumbent, regardless of their party affiliation. The only way we can have a government that truly represents us is by eliminating the possibility of lengthy political careers. When there are no big bucks in the game, there's no game; just servitude.

http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[Ryan M. Powell]

lc2,

I've been over at a different blog entry reading some of your other comments, and I would like to apologize for referring to you as an asshole. You said some things on that page that make me suspect you're probably an all-right person. However, I still maintain that you've used a lot of unnecessary (and asshole-ish) creative license in interpreting some of the things I've said on this page, and I'd like you to re-read my comments with a fresh perspective.

I'm sure y'all know the adage: "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." Well, I don't perpetuate that one because my life experiences have taught me that first impressions are usually inaccurate. I know how it feels to be misjudged based on first impressions, so I choose not to judge people negatively unless/until they've provided more-than-sufficient evidence to justify such a judgment.

Um, like "Peace" or something.

http://www.aimlessmovie.com

[Jacqueline]

Ryan:
I know you are my peer. And I know you are not the enemy here. And I am not your enemy, either. That is why I took the time to respond to you about the subject of Classism. So is Lc2 - she is a peer, too. I am only 7 years older than you both. And I am saying that Lc2 had made a valid point about us not making this one big age-warfare fest because that won't solve a damn thing for any of us who are up the creek without a paddle.

When I graduated HS in 1985, Ronald Regan was president and the massive off-shoring of jobs had already begun even then. Except back then it was only steelworkers, manufacturing workers and blue collar uneducated people that were affected. There were tons of jobs in the "Want Ads" every day, but they fell into 2 categories: $85,000/yr plus benefits computer software engineers w/ 10+ yrs experience and $3.75/hr McJobs with no benefits. Homelessness soared. People my age couldn't get a chance for ANY but the most menial crap jobs (hardly enough to afford a car for getting to work and an apartment). The ones who got all the good jobs then told poor young Gen-Xer's back then that we were just a bunch of "slackers", that we were "whiners" and that "nobody owed us a job" so we should just "quit whining", work ourselves to death in shit jobs, suffer in poverty without access to medical and dental care unheard and unseen because nobody cared about our problems. Occasionally, Time or Newsweek would feature a successful young yuppie Gen-Xer and the theme of the article would always be "he/she carved out their niche, so you can too - if you try hard enough, get a marketable college degree for the New Economy and keep a positive attitude."

Many of us DID try as hard as we possibly could. But a government was entrenched that was voted in by the "haves" and "have-mores" of ALL ages which vastly outnumbered the votes of those of us who were disadvantaged. People of all ages, sexes and races even then were being shoved out of good jobs or denied entry to half-decent jobs to begin with.

Reagan and his worshippers who elected other pro-corporatist politicians enacted assholian laws allowing for jobs to be shipped out, while simultaneously slashing safety nets for the poor and eviscerating student aid with crap like the Gramm-Rudman Bill, while the cost of a college education soared as did the increasing importance of getting a college education for being able to get in at an entry level job. The college degree became the new HS diploma back then. The rungs of the socio-economic ladder above us were sawed off so we couldn't get a chance in this so-called land of opportunity, and meanwhile we were told if we couldn't succeed, we must be the losers who failed to take "personal responsibility" for our own "choices" that anything that happens to us is somehow always our fault.

Reagan busted all the unions and fired the air traffic controllers. He and his fellow Republicans even attempted to do away with the Civil Rights Laws and Affirmative Action that were not even 20 yrs old on the books at that time. And several sell-out Democrats went along with the program. (Clinton signed NAFTA). Reagan and his cronies began a Hitler-like propaganda crusade to demonize welfare recipients, describing them to crowds everywhere as follows:

"How is it right that you and your neighbors who play by the rules and pay the taxes in this country must scrape just to buy a pound of hamburger while some strapping young buck in front of you in the supermarket check-out line has a full cart loaded up with steaks that is being paid for with Food Stamps?"

He slashed funding for Section 8 housing for low to moderate income people and began chipping away at safety net entitlement programs while also taking away the tools needed for access to good jobs - namely, acting to prevent the jobs exodus and keeping Pell Grants intact without cutting them. He painted all welfare mothers as ghetto queens sporting fur coats and diamond rings, loading up their groceries bought on Food Stamps into their Cadillacs. Were there some who abused welfare and fit that profile? Sure. But they were NOT the majority of the welfare recipients! But people bought it - hook, line and sinker, just like the Germans bought into Hitler's propaganda about the Jews being to blame for Germany's defeat in WW I and the economic hardships forced on them by the reparations under the Treaty of Versaille. Frightened, status-striving, insecure people need a scapegoat and so straw men are set up to distract the masses from the real issues. This is Classism and it is an "ism" that has been denied, ignored and not talked about by society then or even now because after all, that would be inciting "class warfare" now wouldn't it?

Hating poor women on welfare and young black men to the point of enacting policies that hurt the poor became more important to the lucky ones with good jobs rather than voting for Democrat candidates who wanted to make sure there would be an entrance into the middle class for us and generations to come, and dismantling Social Security which was to ensure no old age destitution.

Hurting those deemed as "leeches" or “stupid” was more important to the majority of voting aged people back then rather than getting outraged over the S&L and junk bond scandals or the Iranian-Contra affair. This is how Classism was the root cause of misguided Baby Boomer voting majority who voted for those who ended up ruining our country - for EVERYBODY - except the very filthy rich, who had this in mind all along.

And it is also Classism that is now biting Boomers in the ass now. And yes, many of them ARE to blame for the impoverishment of workers now and the race to the bottom because they outnumbered everyone else in the voting booths. But in all fairness, they never saw this mess coming. Many Gen-Xer’s were also fooled, thinking that if we did “all the right things”, there would be a place for us. among the middle class in the “New Economy”. The Republicans were so skilled at selling the middle and upper-middle class the big-ass lemons of Classism, welfare parasites, underclass boogeymen, bashing on the uneducated dislocated blue-collar folks, etc that well-off college educated Boomers didn't see the whole agenda and that they themselves would end up getting sacrificed too.

So now as part of the ultimate plan, $12/hr jobs are "good jobs", those able to get ANY work at all are not regular employees - they're "independent contractors" with NO rights, no benefits, and no work credits paid into Social Security to count towards their eventual old age security - at 70% so that the funds won't run out - supposedly. What's worse is that so many of us under age 50 who will be affected have not had, and won't have, good jobs to enable us to save anything for our own old age - and who's going to come to OUR rescue? The way things are going, 90% of us won't be able to support ourselves then since we're not making it now.

The ONLY way we can hope to undo the damage is to make one big clean sweep of ALL politicians who opened the door for a globalized slave economy. And that will take inter-generational cooperation - NOT generation warfare. Economically, 90% of us are ALL peers.

[Monica]

That reminds me that I should better spend less and save more (I'm only in my 30s). The fact is that many working people are only a few months away at best from complete destitution. However, this person was almost 63. He had plenty of time to save, if not enough money to support himself for three years, at least just enough to complete his income during that time,if a $7/h job is not enough. And there are ways to reduce the cost of food in the long run (some investment may be necessary at the beginning). For instance, I am making my own canned food (a special pot called autoclave is necessary if it contains meat). Or, I would often have gruel (without sugar) for breakfast, but add various nuts for protein, or a little bit of apple or apple sauce (without sugar). While the idea was to avoid eating calorie-rich foods, something like that is not expensive, yet it is healthy (I do vary my diet, especially at dinner, and I would cook the gruel in milk). It takes planning and it may not work for people who never worked long enough, but until 63, he had plenty of time to arrange to be better off than in prison, even if that means living frugally and having a tight budget. Now, I understand that some people can't save much. However, the year has 52 weeks and three years have 156 weeks. It takes just 1040$ to have an extra $20 per week, and $2080 to have $40. OK, it takes more because of inflation, but the point is that even having just enough money to complete a somewhat insufficient grocery bill during 3 years would make a difference, and that can certainly be arranged in many years of employment, and that some small savings plus a $7 job may have been a realistic solution, if planned beforehand.

[Jacqueline]

Well Monica I guess when you are better off than someone like that poor guy, it's easy to sit in smug judgment when you are not in his shoes.

He should have had enough money to tide him over for 3 yrs until his social security because "he had plenty of time to save"? He was already without an income for 3 years at the time he resorted to this "option". Do you have a good job where you make enough money to be able to afford to basically and simply live for 6 years? (Remember: the 3 years he was already without a job and the 3 years left he has to go until he gets social security)

And what about the fact that he may not have been one of those lucky ones to have had a good job for most of his life? Did that thought cross your mind? Just because someone is much older than you doesn't mean they have had any economic security in their life! When you've been working-poor the majority of your life and experienced any long lay-offs, those are times that drain any savings you might have and also means you had less income to work with from the get-go.

Did it ever occur to you that any savings he had were wiped out just trying to keep the basics paid and also deal with health problems, too? When you lose your job, you also lose your health benefits. Now what do you think happens to middle-agers who are more prone to serious age-related medical conditions or health issues when they have NO health benefits because they've lost their jobs and the premiums for health insurance for an inadquate individual HMO policy w/ unaffordable co-pays and deductibles would be too expensive to afford but not having it could be a death sentence - especially if you're a heart patient or have diabetes?
Health insurance rates for older people are far worse than auto insurance rates for teenage drivers!

And BTW, alot of people never got to have a good paying job to even be able to afford to save the $20/week , which is $80/mo that you speak of as though that was chump change.
As you put it, 52 weeks and 156 weeks in 3 years (actually that number should be doubled because if he had 3 yrs to go until getting SSA, and was already without a job for 3 yrs, the actual time is 6 yrs) at $20/week assumes that he was in a position to save enough money BEFORE losing his job THREE YEARS AGO to tide him over until THREE YEARS FROM NOW.

ANd since you failed to consider things like medical needs, etc you don't know what could have happened to that man between the time he was your age and now. So to sit there smugly judging others when you don't know their situation and have not walked a mile in their shoes is ignorant and wrong.

BTW, as a diabetic with food allergies, I would not have been able to eat your diet in order to save money - or keep from becoming destitute. How do you know that poor man isn't in a similar situation - or maybe worse? How do you know his life's savings wsn't dissipated in caring for a terminally ill wife while coping with previous lay-offs? We do not know the whole story here! Gee, really makes it just so easy to save money when the shit hits the fan - NOT!

[Monica]

I was not talking about saving all the money necessary to live for a few years, but just enough to complete the somewhat insufficient money he could have earned while working for $7/h or for some other low wage. And I was not saying that he was supposed to save $20 a week every week, although for many people on a relatively low income, that can be done. Maybe he could have done it at a slower pace, because until 63, he had time. If he was much younger, I would not have made such comments. The idea was at 63 to always have that extra money to complete his groceries, for example. If he did not work for enough years during his whole life until 63 to eventually be able to save just that, that was a sad situation indeed. And I have been reducing my carb intake myself, as much as I could while I was on the Atkins diet, which worked but I got really fed up of it. Afterwards, I tried to reduce it within reason, for instance by not having desert or sugar and trying to make sure I sill get some protein and reduce calories overall. And I'm glad somebody warned me what can happen, because, being only in my thirties, I still have time to implement my own suggestions to make sure I won't need to go to jail at that age. Since he lost his job 3 years earlier and survived, maybe his medical needs were not such that he could not make it for another 3 years. But it is true that where I live, the government is providing some medical insurance to everybody, I myself avoid doctors and don't particularly need them and $824 may seem less bad in my city. But then, there are homeless people and needy people everywhere. Why become a felon just for that little money that is missing? Anything but that, even begging on the street or going to soup kitchens! Being a felon can close the door to many opportunities, perhaps even to those $7/h jobs, if for some reason looking for one becomes necessary, or for some volunteer job he may enjoy. Only because he can't think of any opportunities he may need, there is no reason to make them impossible. If he said that the $7/h jobs were impossible to get before his crime, that would have been different. Some money needs to come from somewhere.

[Jacqueline]

Monica: First off, what does your having been on the Atkins diet have to do with the topic here? You go from laying down some more judgmental criticism on this poor guy in one breath, then switch gears to something totally unrelated - which is the Atkins Diet! What's up with that?

Second, did you read and absorb Barb's entire article here? The man did NOT rob the bank for the money! He immediately handed the $80 over to the security gurad in the lobby and sat down and politely waited for the police because he WANTED to go to jail to get 3 hots and a cot. He just really didn't want to do anything really, really bad to hurt anyone.

If you read the article - it said he could only get minimum wage jobs. MINIMUM WAGE = $5.15/hour! That is a hell of alot less than these mythical $7/hr jobs you think he turned down. Had he been able to get a $7/hr job, he might not have done what he did!

Third, there is NO healthcare for poor older people here under age 65, except for young single mothers and that's only a 5 yer limit under the Welfare Reform Act passed in 1996. If you are not lucky enough to have a good job that also has employer-provided health benefits where the employer picks up half the premiums, you are looking at around $650/mo in premiums - if you are aged 60 and older. Even peoplemlike me who are going on 40 who never lucked out in getting a chance for a good job can't afford an individual health insurance plan which runs around $300/mo - or more.

Last, did you EVER once stop to think that just because he is old that doesn't mean he had a lifetime of being able to earn enough money to be able to save enough to get by MINIMALLY on for 6-10 years? That age discrimination makes it impossible to get a job that pays enough to support yourself on once you hit 40 so if you weren't one of the lucky few who got a break and a chance in your 20's and 30's, you are screwed.

Are you making more than $7/hr? What about those of us who NEVER even got chances for that? I was out of the workforce due to having a disability for over 10 years, so once I completed my "re-training" - my unaffordable college degree at a very steep debt, I never got a chance for a good job. Between the ages of 24 and 35 I was unable to work, and BARELY able to overcome having two disabilities plus poverty (and NO help!)to get my college degree.

Then after that I spent 4 1/2 yrs trying to get a job - in vain. So when I hit age 60, and can't fend for myself economically, are condescending know-it-all's like you going to sit their smugly and tell me that just because I am 60-soemthing I shouldn't be poor or deserve any sympathy and support because after all, I had "all this time to save money" - even though I DIDN'T have all that time where I was earning a paycheck at all? You don't know if this is what happened to that man in Barb's article. You don't know what could have happened to him in his life.

Americans , unlike Canadians and all the other western nations, do NOT have universal healthcare or affordable healthcare for everybody and healthcare here is very expensive - even when you are young when the rates are alot lower. Every year in America, 18,000 uninsured people DIE from lack of access to medical care and preventive healthcare.

Even those who have health insurance can easily find their life's savings wiped out from medical bils becuase the insurance doesn't cover everything and doctors are all greedy wanting to be rich. The pharmaceutical companies here are also way out of control, too! I know for a fact that the same meds in Canada are about 1/2 -1/3 the price compared to here!
But our idiot government with the head village idiot - the brain-dead cowboy from Texas in the White House - won't allow US citizens to buy cheaper drugs from our northern neighbors - even though this same government has NO problem allowing all our things we need to buy for everyday life to be made overseas and imported back to us so that Wal-Mart's is filled with everything made in China - while US workers who could make this stuff and who need jobs sit here with nothing, many living in 3rd world poverty conditions like the Hurricane Katrina victims. This is perfectly ok according to our pro-big corporation and pro-globalist government, but afordable imported meds are not. Think before you judge!

[gaby]

I am also one of those unfortunate ones, who, despite an undergraduate degree, never went beyond $30,000/yr (still paying student loans today). The money invested in my 401k is quickly eaten up by an almost yearlong jobsearch. I am working, however in underemployment (living very frugally!). The notion of saving is noble but unrealistic. In order to save, it is necessary to have an income that is higher than the cost of living. So reduce the cost of living? Sure, but there comes the time when there is nothing left to reduce. And more and more people find themselves there.

People of the depression era tend to be packrats, I wonder how the fallout of this economic disaster will affect the survivors.

[Monica]

The thing about having been on the Atkins diet is related to the comment about not being able to afford a proper diet if having diabetes. It just happens that diabetes and the Atkins diet have in common the need to control carb intake and that, unfortunately, food that contains fewer carbs and more protein may lead to a larger grocery bill, although proper selection may reduce that. And I don't make that much money myself, but saving even $5 or 10 per week over a long period is by no means unrealistic under most circumstances. That being said, I don't blame that person. I just find it sad that he had to sell something priceless (not having a criminal conviction) and perhaps suffer later because of that (for instance, if a criminal check is necessary for some reason) just to get whatever improvement to his lifestyle is possible in prison. In fact, since he did not want to take the money, why didn't the judge try to help him out some other way, for instance by delaying sentencing as much as possible (to keep him in prison but, technically, not convicted), by arranging for him to have some kind of job or a place in some kind of half-way house, or whatever? Why did the only way to help him involve stripping him of one of the few assets he still had, that is, not being convicted and in prison, or suffering the adverse consequences of that conviction later? And why did the economic system push him to seek that kind of victimization as being better to the alternatives?

[Different]

Sorry Monica, but this needs to be said: You are ONE STUPID WOMAN, undergraduate degree or not, rich or poor, you're just plain DUMB.

"In fact, since he did not want to take the money, why didn't the judge try to help him out..."

Sheesh, score another for Jacqueline. Have you not been following this site and what we are rightfully complaining about? Why didn't the authorities help him? BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA, YEAR 2006, WERE PEOPLE DON'T HELP EACH OTHER! *rollseyes*

Oh, BTW, the Atkins diet is really bad for your health. It causes diabetes and heart disease. The founder of the "Atkins diet", Mr. Atkins, died because of obesity! LMAO!
Maybe Barb needs to give you some biology lessons!

[Monica]

Please, no personal attacks! After all, I have been smart enough to avoid the trap of giving up the advantage of not having a criminal record just to be able to eat, and I have pretty good chances of not being in his situation at 63. As for Atkins, this is off topic but if you want to know, while he was fat at the time, Atkins actually died because he fell on ice. And of course, I have read on the topic myself and made an informed decision. After all, I did not continue long enough to become sick or go back to my old ways and gain all the weight back, and my chances of not getting some disease would not have been any better if I did not lose the bulk of the extra weight I was carrying on my frame.

But that guy who wanted to go to jail, what if he gets released earlier? Besides, what about his stuff? It's hard to set up an apartment without having anything, and he probably won't have a large income. I know what I'm talking about, having moved this summer. But I did not start at zero, since I had some stuff from my old apartment. How is this guy going to furnish and equip his home when he gets out of jail? Overall, even the minor things can add up to large amounts of money.

[barbsright]

Monica is not stupid. She has some valid points, and besides it rude to call someone stupid! Did'nt your parents teach you any manners?!! We do not know the facts of the case, or the mans' history. What does his lawyer have to say? Barb should interview the lawyer and the man. I smell docudrama. If you turn the man into a women it can run on Lifetime, or whatever that 'chickflick' network is called. Maybe I should contact my brother who makes documentaries, and used to do movie script rewrites as a 'script consultant.' In my opinion the man did what he did because he was angry at the world. I feel that anger too, sometimes. The world is unfair. But living here in Lancaster Pa, not far from Nickel Mines PA, I have seen what anger can lead to. I do not believe in age discrimination. I beleive in personality discrimination, and talent discrimination. Think Clint Eastwood. He may be in his 70's, but he is doing the best work of his career. I hate to say it, but if you post on this site your personality is probably your problem. I know a doctor who was great at medicine, but now he has retired at 53 because he just could not relate properly to his patients. Over time he lost his social skills. Sad, but true. I feel sad for the people he employed in his practice. They lost their jobs when he lost his career. And yet he did nothing to become a better preson. I tried to help him, but he refused to listen. That may be the key to success: being a good listener. Caring about others. Living with the attitude of 'How may I help you?' The difference between a job or no job may be being kind to others.

[The Eternal Squire]

Barbsright,
And sometimes people cannot help their personalities, as these are shaped by the circumstances lived through. Endless examples of people exist who are bipolar, dysthymic, dissociative, or who have psychological traumas of various kinds (PTSD, rape, war, mobbing, ostracism), or who have a different view of the world through genetic hardwiring (Aspergers, savants). Why should these people (of who I am among) be forced to be pleasant, or reconfigure themselves to please others? Isn't it better that we have authentic people willing to work hard rather than poseurs whose only virtue to eye and ear candy?

The Eternal Squire

[The Eternal Squire]

I meant what I said in earlier posts in earlier topics about my being able to do basic silversmithing. Anyone need an UP pin? What should that pin look like? And how much do you want to pay for it?

Making something to sell is the only employment I've got left!

The Eternal Squire

[Jacqueline]

Barbsright, I am sorry to say but I must disagree with you on the point about age discrimination. It is unfortunately, quite real. It is by design by the corporate elite who are pulling the strings in this country. It is part of an agenda.
And so is pitting worker against worker so that no one recognizes the injury and injustice being meted out as being just that - an injustice!

It is far easier to get people to follow a larger agenda that is against their own self-interest if they can be conned into blaming the victim and dismissing the economic suffering of so many with off-the-cuff remarks and attitudes like, "well it must be their own fault...they must have failed to do something right" whether that "doing something right" may be fitting in socially with a workplace monopolized by younger contract workers who really don't feel socially comfortable with older co-workers, or being fat, being physically unattractive, or any other silly reason which really has nothing to do with someone's ability to work, need and "deserving-ness" for a job, and their appreciation for the job being that they get the job done well and spend more time doing the job rather than wasting time and energy dodging corporate politics and toxic office cultures.

I don't know if you or the others got a chance to check out the Forums on Barb's main website here. Check it out. There is a guy who is a retired former worker with the US Dept of Labor. He goes by the screen name Labor Specialist and he is very intelligent and has really cleared up and explained - with proof to back it up - what is really going on in this country.

He refers to the new American workplace and job market as a "Serengeti environment" where it is social Darwinism at it's best (or should I really say at it's worst). The Serengeti Plain in Africa is a brutal place where if you are an antelope or a zebra, you have a very harsh life. Labor Specialist eloquently describes us as the antelopes - of course the predators are the wealthy corporate elites and the GOP who is enabling them. Please go check out his posts.

Look under the topics of "Worried About Age Discrimination" and "Political Action Needed". Read the threads. This man knows what he's talking about.