Can you live on $9 an hour? Play this game.

[bettymae1121]

I did my own version of this a few years ago when the economy tanked. At the time it was just DH and I (we are expecting our 1st next year) and I wanted to see what would happen if we BOTH lost our good paying jobs and both had to take minimum wage jobs, each of us working 40 hours a week.

I then did research and found out what apartments rent for in our general area (I've always owned so I wasn't sure) and found a studio in complex I knew had a bad rep, but it included utilities and cable. I estimated what our food bill would be on a bare-bones grocery budget, and cut out all extras. Assuming we'd let the house and cc debt "go" and file bankruptcy (cuz there would be no way for use to even make minimums and still eat on two min. wage jobs), I figured we could rent that apartment and get by on minimum wage as long as both of us were able to work 40 hours a week. Our only saving grace in this scenario is we own both our cars outright, so even after bankruptcy we'd still have transportation. Our biggest hurdle is DH's diabeties, assuming that neither minimum wage job would have insurance, we'd have to pay OOP for his medicines at a tune of $500 a month, plus a doc's office visit 4x a year (more if he gets sick). I think the numbers came out that we would just scape by, the problem was that if one of the cars broke down or something other emergency expense or interuption in income occured, we'd be SOL. On the other hand, I didn't factor in going to food banks or any other assistance we might qualify for (as two able bodied adults with no kids I figured we wouldn't qualify for much other than a food bank) or factor in one or both of us getting 2nd part time jobs for more of a cushion.

Of course that was an extreme "what if" senerio I wanted to play out just to see what would happen. The odds of both of us losing our jobs at this point is pretty slim, what would likely happen is one of us would lose our jobs and that person would collect unemployment for a while until something came along (and more than likely at higher than min. wage). We both get medical insurance offered by our companies, mine is better so we are on that but DH's isn't horible either, so no matter which one of use got layed off, we'd be covered there. My real "oh poop" emergency budget is based on going down to one income and unemployment payments. We do just fine in that situation too, we wouldn't even need to declare bankruptcy.

 

[tlbwriter]

You do it because it is the morally correct thing to do. Sometimes doing the right thing is not the easiest thing. It's so much easier to take advantage of a program that was not intended for use by someone who can afford to feed their child.

And I already said that I would not go so far as to use the term "moochers".

To me, this is a bizarre way of looking at things. I don't try to get things I'm not entitled to, but if the school wants to offer a free meal to all students, I'm certainly not going to go to a lot of trouble and inconvenience to avoid taking it. If you think that makes me immoral, so be it.

 

[Marionnette]

To me, this is a bizarre way of looking at things. I don't try to get things I'm not entitled to, but if the school wants to offer a free meal to all students, I'm certainly not going to go to a lot of trouble and inconvenience to avoid taking it. If you think that makes me immoral, so be it.

It's not such a bizarre way of seeing things. Your manner of thinking is exactly why so many taxpayers are against the expansion of entitlement programs. This unfortunately hurts the people who truly are in need.

You can afford to feed your child but choose to use taxpayer dollars to do so because it is an added expense and an inconvenience. I see that as a moral flaw. You don't - as do many other people who also take advantage of programs like this when they are capable of surviving without them. Because it would be hard to justify taking something that was intended to help someone in true need if you saw it the way I do.

 

[tlbwriter]

It's not such a bizarre way of seeing things. Your manner of thinking is exactly why so many taxpayers are against the expansion of entitlement programs. This unfortunately hurts the people who truly are in need.

You can afford to feed your child but choose to use taxpayer dollars to do so because it is an added expense and an inconvenience. I see that as a moral flaw. You don't - as do many other people who also take advantage of programs like this when they are capable of surviving without them. Because it would be hard to justify taking something that was intended to help someone in true need if you saw it the way I do.

Well, remember that this is all hypothetical. If you'll go back and read my post, I said the school is TRYING to get free lunches for all students. So don't worry, I'm not taking food out of the mouths of poor children just yet.

I'll admit, I don't understand why our school is doing this. Apparently they think we have enough children who qualify for free/reduced lunches that we'll meet some magic percentage that makes lunches free for all kids. I didn't ask for it. I'm perfectly fine paying for lunch. I guess the benefit is that children who fell through the cracks because their parents were too proud, disorganized, or ignorant to apply for the free lunch will now get it, so that's a good thing.

Anyway, my conscience and my morals are perfectly fine, thank you. Be careful you don't hurt yourself falling off that big ol' horse.

 

[punkin]

It's not such a bizarre way of seeing things. Your manner of thinking is exactly why so many taxpayers are against the expansion of entitlement programs. This unfortunately hurts the people who truly are in need.

You can afford to feed your child but choose to use taxpayer dollars to do so because it is an added expense and an inconvenience. I see that as a moral flaw. You don't - as do many other people who also take advantage of programs like this when they are capable of surviving without them. Because it would be hard to justify taking something that was intended to help someone in true need if you saw it the way I do.

Whoa there....moral flaw? It is bizarre to think that it is a moral flaw if a parent won't force her child to take lunch from home when the school offers one.

 

[Colleen27]

You do it because it is the morally correct thing to do. Sometimes doing the right thing is not the easiest thing. It's so much easier to take advantage of a program that was not intended for use by someone who can afford to feed their child.

And I already said that I would not go so far as to use the term "moochers".

Usually, though, when schools decide to extend free breakfast or lunch to all students the funding for the non-needy kids comes from a different source. The govt only reimburses based on the means-tested free/reduced lunch program but community organizations sometimes step up to cover the difference.

In my district the funding for breakfast-for-all comes from a private charity. Kids who qualify for free or reduced meals and who return the forms still get that assistance from the govt, but in my area the political/social/cultural climate is such that a significant number of parents were refusing to apply for assistance despite clear need and kids were still coming to school hungry. So a local community organization stepped up to cover the gap, not just for needy families who didn't apply or don't qualify for the govt program, but for ANY student who attends our school. It doesn't matter if the family is chronically needy, or ran out of cereal and is strapped for cash until payday, or even overslept and just didn't have time for breakfast - if a student gets off the bus hungry, s/he can have breakfast without worrying about the price.

 

[Marionnette]

Usually, though, when schools decide to extend free breakfast or lunch to all students the funding for the non-needy kids comes from a different source. The govt only reimburses based on the means-tested free/reduced lunch program but community organizations sometimes step up to cover the difference.

In my district the funding for breakfast-for-all comes from a private charity. Kids who qualify for free or reduced meals and who return the forms still get that assistance from the govt, but in my area the political/social/cultural climate is such that a significant number of parents were refusing to apply for assistance despite clear need and kids were still coming to school hungry. So a local community organization stepped up to cover the gap, not just for needy families who didn't apply or don't qualify for the govt program, but for ANY student who attends our school. It doesn't matter if the family is chronically needy, or ran out of cereal and is strapped for cash until payday, or even overslept and just didn't have time for breakfast - if a student gets off the bus hungry, s/he can have breakfast without worrying about the price.

I think that it's wonderful that the private sector stepped up and filled a need that they saw. The free school breakfast/lunch/snack program in other areas is not done the same way.

For instance, in the city of Philadelphia the schools that fall within the guidelines for free meals for all students are only reimbursed with federal funds for those students who actually qualify. The difference in cost is absorbed by the schools (which is really the taxpayer). Since the Philadelphia School District is heavily reliant on funding from the state, it's the taxpayers of PA who pay for those free meals that the federal government does not pay for. If the schools did not have to divert funds to pay for those free lunches, the money could be spent elsewhere, maybe even on books and educational materials. Or they could provide a healthier school lunch to those needy students instead of defining catsup as a vegetable in order to meet guidelines.

If people began to look at things with the perspective that there is no such thing as a free lunch, they would realize that those finite funds that are directed at these programs can only stretch so far. And when you take advantage of them, that means that someone else gets that much less because of you. I have no problem when people who need these programs utilize them. But when someone who doesn't need it uses the program just because they can, it bothers me. A lot.

 

[tlbwriter]

But when someone who doesn't need it uses the program just because they can, it bothers me. A lot.

Oooh, the judgmentalness. It burns. If my daughter ends up using this program, it won't be "just because we can." It will be "because the school makes it difficult not to." Believe me, if there's still someone willing to take our money, we will pay, even if we CAN skip that.

 

[Marionnette]

Oooh, the judgmentalness. It burns. If my daughter ends up using this program, it won't be "just because we can." It will be "because the school makes it difficult not to." Believe me, if there's still someone willing to take our money, we will pay, even if we CAN skip that.

You're the one who made excuses about how time consuming it is to pack a lunch. And how difficult it is for your daughter to carry a lunch or get to her locker to retrieve it.

Here's a thought:
If you cannot pay for your child's school lunch because they make it so difficult to do so, why not donate a check written out for the equivalent amount? Then you will have replaced the funds that you used.

 

[tlbwriter]

You're the one who made excuses about how time consuming it is to pack a lunch. And how difficult it is for your daughter to carry a lunch or get to her locker to retrieve it.

Reasons, dear. Not excuses. There's a difference.

Here's a thought:
If you cannot pay for your child's school lunch because they make it so difficult to do so, why not donate a check written out for the equivalent amount? Then you will have replaced the funds that you used.

Maybe I will. But personal attacks on my morals and nasty judgmental comments certainly don't inspire me to do so.

Have a nice day.

 

[fromscratchmom]

They have become used to the entitlement mentality and will not see the flaws in it. They are the frogs in the slowly warming pot and they will not jump out. While we have true wisdom we could be guided by, such as that great Thatcher quote, "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Many people just don't care enough to know what is really good for everyone vs. what feels good or acceptable at the moment or what has been pushed at them from untrustworthy sources.

While I've not seen it from people I know who really care about others and show it, I've seen a tremendous increase from ideologues in the last several years of people trying and in some ways succeeding at spreading a mindset where things are supposed to be at a certain standard and if they are not at that standard or can be made to appear to not be there, then the famous "someone" is supposed to make that different through force of law and government enforced redistribution of wealth. There is no acknowledgement of real efforts from real people who believe that it is good to do good to others, nor for real people who try to take responsibility for themselves but there is a great deal of belittling, marginalizing and even demonizing people in these two categories in a myriad of ways.

The same demonization happens just as often for people who get in the way of these elitist socialist forces in any other way as well. For example, when my son was in elementary school, he had all sorts of problems and issues. (He has asperger's syndrome.) Before I began stepping up my efforts to advocate for him and not let him slip through the cracks, no one cared. Afterwards, the schools did everything in their power nearly up to causing us very large legal troubles trying to prove how bad we were as parents and how many problems he had all of which were our fault. Before I realized that he was not eating his lunches at school, no one there cared even though they clearly knew and easily informed me that no he did not eat, everything went in the trash. After I began checking in on how he was doing with this and working on ways to ensure he was properly nourished every day, I received no end of pressure from all sorts of people at the school to do better in what I sent for him or getting out of the way and letting them as the experts take care of him for me. After the lunches issues, it didn't take me long to finally see them for what they were and get the heck out of dodge--never to regret our departure from government run education.

There will never be an end to what some people think every child has to have and what standard every parent has to live up to if they are to be allowed to be parents at all. But there are a lot of people beginning to wake up to the problems that are happening. Either enough will wake up to the bankrupting of our society and the ending of our responsibilities and our freedoms, or eventually all the frogs in the water will be boiled.

 

[nunzia]

I'm not sure what you're saying here... my daughter's school offers free breakfast for all students and they're trying to get free lunches for everyone. Are parents who accept that "mooching?" My daughter doesn't eat the free breakfast at school, but I don't think she could pay for it even if she wanted to.

No, I was running 2 thoughts together..sorry! I guess my point on that was why on earth would the govenrment just give all kids in an area free stuff if they were needy or not...it just goes to the theory that the government is somehow responsible for feeding kids when that is the parent's responsibility. I don't think it's mooching, but of course if you wanted to send your kid a lunch to school as a matter of principle that would be something else, but I certainly don't blame parents for taking advantage of what is offered..my own grandkids did.

 

[nunzia]

Usually, though, when schools decide to extend free breakfast or lunch to all students the funding for the non-needy kids comes from a different source. The govt only reimburses based on the means-tested free/reduced lunch program but community organizations sometimes step up to cover the difference.

In my district the funding for breakfast-for-all comes from a private charity. Kids who qualify for free or reduced meals and who return the forms still get that assistance from the govt, but in my area the political/social/cultural climate is such that a significant number of parents were refusing to apply for assistance despite clear need and kids were still coming to school hungry. So a local community organization stepped up to cover the gap, not just for needy families who didn't apply or don't qualify for the govt program, but for ANY student who attends our school. It doesn't matter if the family is chronically needy, or ran out of cereal and is strapped for cash until payday, or even overslept and just didn't have time for breakfast - if a student gets off the bus hungry, s/he can have breakfast without worrying about the price.

Well, that is not the case here, although I can see it could be elsewhere. Here it was government funds..the school is Title Something or Section Whatever..they also offer free to all breakfast and lunches all summer to anyone under 18 who cares to come throughout the entire community.

 

[Colleen27]

I think that it's wonderful that the private sector stepped up and filled a need that they saw. The free school breakfast/lunch/snack program in other areas is not done the same way.

For instance, in the city of Philadelphia the schools that fall within the guidelines for free meals for all students are only reimbursed with federal funds for those students who actually qualify. The difference in cost is absorbed by the schools (which is really the taxpayer). Since the Philadelphia School District is heavily reliant on funding from the state, it's the taxpayers of PA who pay for those free meals that the federal government does not pay for. If the schools did not have to divert funds to pay for those free lunches, the money could be spent elsewhere, maybe even on books and educational materials. Or they could provide a healthier school lunch to those needy students instead of defining catsup as a vegetable in order to meet guidelines.

If people began to look at things with the perspective that there is no such thing as a free lunch, they would realize that those finite funds that are directed at these programs can only stretch so far. And when you take advantage of them, that means that someone else gets that much less because of you. I have no problem when people who need these programs utilize them. But when someone who doesn't need it uses the program just because they can, it bothers me. A lot.

Well, that is not the case here, although I can see it could be elsewhere. Here it was government funds..the school is Title Something or Section Whatever..they also offer free to all breakfast and lunches all summer to anyone under 18 who cares to come throughout the entire community.

Wow, I've never heard of that happening around here. I would guess we don't have a high enough percentage of free/reduced participation for it to come up? The school's share would just be too high. Our area isn't poor really, just blue collar/working class with unemployment that has gone through the roof in recent years - kind of the "fall through the cracks", paycheck-to-paycheck demographic, not quite well off enough to comfortably make ends meet, but not poor enough to have the social and educational problems that tend to draw attention (and funding) to the issue.