Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    	Well, I have one or two stories for you.
    
    	An acquaintance of mine was a fulltime homemaker for thirty years
    	when her husband had a serious (later fatal) illness that took
    	nearly everything they owned -- their business, their savings,
    	their life insurance, their house.  They were barely able to find
    	an extremely small house (to keep a roof over their heads) before 
    	they went bankrupt and he died.  Their two youngest children were 
    	still in High School.
    
    	After his death, the woman had to find some kind of work, but
    	to keep the family going while she looked (and took a small
    	bit of training,) they went on welfare for a short time.
    
    	After all the years that their family had paid taxes, they
    	felt that a short time on welfare was not much to ask (for the
    	sake of the two children still at home.)
    
    	After she got established in a job, they went off welfare.
    
    	Someone else that I know got pregnant and was married at the
    	age of 16 (after only two years of high school.)  At 21 years
    	old, her husband divorced her, and when he was ordered to pay
    	child support, he fled the state.  She had little education, no
    	job experience, and no way to collect child support, so she
    	went on welfare.  Last I heard, she was cleaning houses to
    	supplement her income and was planning to try going to school
    	to become a hairdresser.
    
    	Her family disowned her when she quit school and got married
    	at 16.  Without welfare, she and her little boy would have
    	been out on the street.  Whether or not she will make it off
    	welfare soon, I don't know.  Last I knew, she was trying.
    
    	As a taxpayer myself, I'd rather that my tax dollars be used
    	to help PEOPLE (rather than to pay for more bombs or $400
    	toilet seats.)  That's how I feel about it.

    One of my wifes friends is/was on Welfare. She was trying to raise
    her daughter alone and care for her aged mother. The (Mass.) welfare
    system cut her benefits off when she got a raise at her meager job.
    Reason, she made $2.00 over the limit. Without the Welfare, she
    almost had to quit the job.

    
    RE .-1  Those 'bombs and $400 toilet seats' are some of the things
            that allow us to have and keep this free notes file. Let
            us also talk of 'welfare queens' etc if you so desire. But
            these topics should be a different note.

    I suppose there are different categories of welfare people:
    
    	1. As above trying to get off.
    	2. Can't get off due to circumstances (hopefully other than
           their own creating). i.e Illness, disability, etc
	3. People who don't want to get off (freeloaders)

    Then there is beauracy (sp). They have their rules and they have
    their empires (the way to get ahead in most organizations). If more
    people are on welfare, and I have been here the longest, and they
    need a new supervisor, maybe I will become boss.

    My $1.02
    Steve

    	RE: .2
    
    	Although I'm sure that $400 toilet seats are somehow necessary
    	to insure our freedom and all, I'm entitled to my opinion when
    	I state that I prefer seeing my tax dollars going to help PEOPLE
    	(rather than seeing it spent in some other ways...)

    	Like I said earlier, it's just how I feel about it.  You know --
    	in my humble opinion and all that jazz.
    

    I have both dealt with the welfare system [I had a foster child
    for a year while living in Washington, DC--the "stripend" paid to
    foster parents was through the Welfare office].  I have also had
    2 friends who, at one time, found themselves the recipients of Welfare.
    
    My experience with the situation of the foster child was this: because
    we were considered an upper-middle class family, the scrutiny we
    underwent before we were given the custody of Melody was incredible.
     We owned a 4 bedroom-3-bath home in a fine neighborhood in Fairfax,
    Va.  Church members, professional husband, 4 nice kids, all that
    jazz.  Anyway, once we finally were granted foster care, that Welfare
    worker *literally* disappeared!  I *never* saw her until the day
    she came to removed Melody from our home to return her to her mother.
    
    I called her every month and forced her to spend time listening
    to my report on Mel's progress.  And when my brother was thought
    to be dying we had to return to Ga. immediately.  I called Welfare
    to ask permission to take Mel, and *they* suggested I just put her
    back in the hellhole of Jr. Village that she had come from until
    we returned.  Really kind, sensitive, concerned people, right? 
    In other words, Mel was expendable by their standards.  She went
    with us---I would not have gone, even to see my brother [who incidently
    did fine] because I could not have born the hurt that Mel would
    have experienced to be returned even for a short time after being
    a literal and loved part of our family.  But try and explain that
    to that (*^&*) Welfare Agent.
    
    2.  My friends were on welfare when they were unable to find jobs
    which would provide enough money [this was in the late 60s, early
    70s and in *NASHUA* the Welfare pit of NH] to keep their child(ern)
    fed.  They both worked under the table at odd jobs to make up for
    the minimal amt. Welfare gave them.  One started a local organization
    becoming its first director, eventually becoming a Child Welfare
    worker herself.  The other managed to get Welfare to send her to
    school, she got herself off Welfare and now sports [in a bureau
    drawer] a Phi Beta Kappa key.
    
    Welfare behavior towards those on welfare is one of the disturbing
    things I have seen.  In Nashua, at one point, they were pushing
    the "Work Project" and it would have been just fine had they offered
    a real, suitable work-training.  However, too often, they welfare
    people who were working X number of hours "to help pay back their
    received assistance" were doing things like cleaning toilets at
    the public library. 
    
    I would be glad to suggest several people that you might want to
    call and talk with in the city of Nashua who could give you some
    interesting information.  If you are interested, send me mail.
    
    M

I've read several stories in V1 of womannotes I found moving. Perhaps our
archivist will have something to say. [Monday is a Massachusetts holiday, so it
make take a few days.]
	Mez

    What's wrong with cleaning toilets in the library?  It's honest
    work, although perhaps not particularly desirable.  What is inherently
    "wrong" with having individuals (who would otherwise live on public
    funds) provide a needed service?
    
    BTW, I've had my stint with Welfare as a CETA worker way back when.
    I've also cleaned toilets.
    
    LZP
    

     The following reply is from a member of the community who
     wishes to be anonymous.
    
     Bonnie J
     moderator
    
    
*************************************************************************** 

    You obviously have never been in a position to need help or you 
    probably would not be stating your position so harshly. 

    I'll agree with you that many people who are on welfare are able to get 
    themselves off it but do not want to.  I know of one who got tired of 
    her job, quit and went on welfare; another who is on welfare but is 
    also working under the table; and another who just doesn't want to get 
    off welfare because they enjoy taking every free ride that comes along.
    I don't go along with this any more than you do.  BUT...

    there *are* many people who truly *need* it, and hold good jobs that can
    not get assistance because, (a) they make too much money (welfare looks
    at your gross pay regardless of how much is taken out of it), (b) they 
    are single, and the list continues.

    When my little boy was a baby and his father wasn't bringing home any 
    money there were many times I had to borrow money from my folks or my 
    little boy wouldn't have had food.  I was working and scraping to 
    support three people while my ex-husband boozed and did drugs.

    After I threw him out, I went to a financial counseling service with 
    all my bills and tried to sort out some way to pay them.  The person I 
    spoke to took one look at my bills and my income, shook his head and 
    told me I'd need 2 full-time jobs to make enough money to pay the 
    bills.  He suggested I apply for assistance and to WIC.  The financial 
    guidelines for WIC were crazy ($129/wk gross or under). 

    Welfare said I made too much money (3 times Welfare guideline) yet I 
    didn't make enough to pay for rent, utilities, clothing for a growing 
    baby, or food (not to mention the other bills).  I ended up having my 
    folks co-sign a loan for $5,000 to pay off some of the bills (that was 
    a year ago).  Today, I have 3 years left to pay on that loan, plus 
    about another $6,000 left to pay, only $2,000 of which are current 
    unavoidable legal fees.

    I still can not afford day care for my child so my folks drive 48 miles
    per day to care for him so that I may work.  So, you see, not everyone 
    on Welfare is there because they want to be.  Some people need to be, 
    and in my case, aren't even able to get $1 worth of help.

    One more thing to note about Welfare systems:  I have found that the 
    guidelines are no different from one state to another.  Many believe 
    they are different.  These guidelines are set by the Federal government
    with the only difference being the amount allotted to each state.  This
    is true for MA & NH anyway.
    

    re:.6
    
    <What's wrong with cleaning toilets in the library?....
    
    Nothing.  Except the person who was doing the cleaning was told
    that she would receive some training towards a job which would enable
    her to earn a living for herself.  If she had wanted to be a
    toilet-cleaner, she could have worked [for minimium wage which would
    have permitted her kids to go hungrier than they usually were] at
    any of the cleaning services in Nashua.  She had a high school
    education, and simply needed a hand up.  
    
    I have absolutely no trouble with having those who receive public
    assistance working towards a "re-payment" of the help.  I do, however,
    believe that a policy of work/training should offer the opportunity
    to those with sufficient education to be trained to get *off Welfare*.
    
    This cannot be done without spending money for job-training, providing
    child-care while parent is training, giving participant opportunity
    to be an internee/hands-on training, and be given the difference
    between the salary s/he earns once s/he gets a job, and whatever
    it takes to keep  at a decent $$ level until the job is secured
    [90 days].  
    
    This involves the Welfare, community and businesses to cooperate
    in bringing this about.  Nashua Adult Learning Center is a marvelous
    example of re-training opportunities for low-income or people
    re-entering the job market.  Digital offers--or did, I am not sure
    what is being done now--Word Processing training.  
    
    But it requires an honest effort on the community and on Welfare's
    part to bring this about.  
    
    Unfortunately, too many on Welfare *cannot* hold a decent and
    reasonable paying job.  They are undereducated, or illiterate, or
    physically or mentally impaired, or burdened with children.
    
    As you can see, I *do* believe in Welfare.  I *don't* believe in
    the attitude that the system is okay and the people are not.  I
    have had too many dealings with a system that s*c*s!  And I had
    rather feed 10 mouths that "don't deserve it" than to let one mouth
    go hungry that does deserve it.
    
    There is a blues song that goes..."Them that has, shall get, them
    that don't, shall lose, so the Bible says, and it still is news".
    
    There is also a new saying: "I've got mine, Jack, sorry about you."
    
    Amen.

    Does "Welfare" include food stamps, ADC, and low-income
    housing?  If it doesn't, then the following is *not* a
    "welfare" story.

    In 1978 I met a woman in my calculus class at school whose
    company I really enjoyed, and we started "hanging out"
    together.  Let me call her Dee.  Dee was a few years older
    than me, was struggling to get through college so she'd have
    a marketable skill, had three children (ages 6, 4, and 3) and
    her husband had just left her.  She was renting an apartment
    when I first met her, but moved into low-income housing
    pretty quickly because it was more affordable.  Sometime in
    there she applied for ADC because her ex was pretty bad about
    paying child support, and I assume she applied for food
    stamps about the same time. 

    During the next several years she went to school, although
    not full-time.  Her youngest kids stayed in the campus
    day-care center until they were old enough to be in school.
    All her kids were extremely adept at reading bus timetables
    from an early age, so that they could catch buses between
    school, campus, home, etc.  (Dee had no car.)  Dee tutored
    other students during the evening, for a few hundred $ a
    month, to supplement the other aid she received.  It was all
    not quite enough to make ends meet, but friends and church
    chipped in often enough to keep body and soul together. 

    Then with about one year left before she got her education
    degree, Dee's youngest child turned 6.  This apparently
    disqualified Dee's family for food stamps (and maybe some
    other stuff--I'm not clear on that), and Dee nearly quit
    school, even with the degree that close, so she could pay for
    groceries.  But she stuck with it, getting a small loan due
    after graduation, doing more part-time work, and nearly
    driving herself to a physical and nervous breakdown. I don't
    know how she did it. 

    Today she's got her degree, a job, and is no longer receiving
    financial aid of any sort.  I have no doubt that it was due
    to the aid that she was able to finish school and become
    self-supporting.  She had no family who could have supported
    her for the several years it took, and friends and church
    could help, but not as much as her rather desparate straits
    called for.

    -- Linda

I know two families who have been on welfare.

The first was a woman with a young child, whose husband was unwilling or
unable to pay child support.   She remained on welfare for four years, 
while attending a local community college.  Luckily, she was eligible 
for financial aid, so her fees and tuition and books were paid.  
Luckily, she was able to find jobs which would pay her cash under 
the table so she could have money to pay for child-care while she was 
in class.   Otherwise, she might still be on welfare today.  Instead,
she graduated, got a good job, and is certainly paying back the
government in taxes today.

The second was/is a family with two small children (another on the way).
The mother stays home with the children.  The father works full-time (and 
then some) at a retail-store.  Their medical benefits are lousy, and their
income low enough to qualify for food-stamps.  As it is, they are sometimes
reduced to begging relatives and friends and churches for money in order to buy
prescriptions for the children when they get ill.  (I know, I'm one of
the ones who's shelled out the $$$ for the antibiotics.)  They have to
move on a regular basis because they can never keep up with the rent,
so they move before the landlord starts legal proceedings or tries to
evict them.  And they're going bankrupt because they can't even
begin to pay their backlog of bills.

At one point, the wage-earner in this family was between jobs, and his
unemployment had run out.   They were desparate for food (the whole
family was living on the juice, milk, and eggs they got on WIC) so
they went to the Nashua (NH) public assistence office.  They did
get grocery money, and got through that crisis, but about a month
later the City of Nashua sent a "bill" to their parents.  Apparently
there is some regulation that allows the city to bill any relatives 
of the assistence-recipiant for the amount of the assistence.
This I find outrageous.

I don't always agree with the choices this family makes (like the third
child), but I can see that life is difficult for them.   Even the
public assistence they can get isn't enough to get them through.   
I do think that a series of bad choices has contributed to their
prediciment.   However, I'm not willing to let the children suffer
for the bad choices of their parents.  I want to see those children
well-fed, and taken to the doctor when they're sick, and given
every opportunity to get a good education.   I want them to see them
acquire the skills to support themselves in this society.  I see
more chances of them getting those skills with assistence than without.

    
    			(Exactly what I needed)
    
    re: 7
    
    This is the kind of input I needed.  I interviewed a gal on ADC
    and I guess it kind of left a bad taste in my mouth.  She lives
    in a very nice apartment with washer and drying hookups, cable,
    in a real nice part of town.  She pays $250 a month (utilities
    included).  She receives $365 a month ADC and $175 in food stamps.
    She told me she sells food stamps because the $115 she has leftover
    in cash is not enough to cover her other expenses.  I don't even
    have that much left over at the end of the month and I only have
    one child.  She had twice the food in her refridgerator that I had.
    
    When I asked her if she knew about the free schooling provided by
    Social Services (with free day care), she said she wasn't interested.
    She said she makes more money on welfare.  THATS why I have an 
    attitude, I've met too many people like this.  (Even some people
    at Digital)  
    
    I know there are some folks out there that really need the help,
    I don't begrudge them the help at all.  I think its a darn shame
    that those people that need the help are penalized when they
    do find jobs.  
    
    
    thanks again for the help!
    
    linney
    

 One of my favorite subjects. :-)

 First, a story.

 The mother of a woman I know died when the woman was 15. As the courts were 
about to put her in yet another foster home, she petitioned the judge to allow
her to marry her boyfriend (now at 16). Judge refused. She got herself pregnant,
returned to court. Judge said ok.

 Tina was born a few months later. Dad was not happy as he wanted a boy, but
things were still ok. The couple lived in the boonies in Tennessee, 20 miles
from their nearest neighbors. A year or so later, the woman becomes pregnant 
again. When her second child, Renee, was born, her husband was furious that
she refused to give him a boy. In addition, the child was collicky, and always
needed to be held. This lead to abuse by the father. He didn't like the sex
of the child, and her crying drove him crazy, so he'd hit her. After a trip
to the doctor's in Virginia where they now lived, the woman tossed her husband
out on his ear (due to the fractured skull he had given his youngest).

 Now we have a woman, 18-19 years old, unskilled, two children, and no means of
support. What did she do?

 She got her self a job. She relied on her friends. She obtained minimal child
support because she felt sorry?!!! for her ex husband. They made it. Barely-
scraping at times, but they made it. She never accepted welfare. (I think she
should have at least gotten SOME assistance.) She is far too strong willed
for that.

 Even today, she receives only $320 monthly for child support for her two
teenage girls. Everyone knows that $320 doesn't make it past the tenth of the
month in paying for teenage girl's costs.

re: billing relatives

 As much as I love low tax NH, I think this policy is absurd. Why bother giving
people money if you're just going to make their relatives pay for it? Cut out
the middle man and make things more streamlined. The idea of assistance is to
provide when there is no other way. This negates that premise. Dumb idea.

re: people who continue to make bad decisions

 What do you do (as a government) when you have situations where people are
making bad decisions that have a negative impact on their kids? Do you 
simply pour money on their problems, bailing them out at every opportunity
(while still allowing them total freedom of choice)? Do you remove the kids
from the home? What do you do when people are stupid?

============

 Many people think that welfare is the greatest thing since a pocket on a shirt.
Others think it's the worst thing since Ivan the Terrible. it's really in
between.

 For every incidence of welfare abuse, there is probably a case of someone that
needs money that isn't getting it. The key to welfare is that it is supposed to
be assistance, not support. Many people look at welfare as a sole means of 
support, and claim it's not enough. It isn't, but then, it isn't supposed to be.

 There are some cases of people who are simply unable to fend for themselves.
These people need to be supported in a way that allows both dignity and a
cost effective solution to the many problems these people represent. Many more 
people are simply unwilling to work to support themselves. They deserve
nothing, aside from a kick in the buttocks.

 But by far, the largest group is that of people in a difficult situation, who
just need a little help to get them by. They are the people who deserve
assistance. They need training so they can fend for themselves. Welfare is
not supposed to be a gravy train. It should, however, help people help 
themselves.

 the Doctah

    There are several stories in note 314 of womannotes V1.  This note
    is titled "WOMAN/POVERTY=ERA?".  Also closely related in this file
    is topic 497, on poverty.
    
    -Jody
    

    When I was 16, I worked a summer in a school for "learning disabled"
    children.  Most of the children were from welfare families, and
    in most cases the parents had been in their early to mid teens when
    they had their children.  
    
    The point made in an earlier note about "why should I work" was
    appropriate to these people too.  Furthermore, the more children
    they had, the larger the check.  
    
    I like the idea of some sort of safety net - If I ever wind up on
    the rocks, I'd like a net there that goes further than unemployment.
    But on the other hand, if someone is going to accept aid, I'd like
    to see it disbursed differently.  For example, I occasionally see
    people at the supermarket buying cat food,  dog food, cake, ice
    cream, etc., with food stamps.  These are, of course, the ones that
    don't sell their food stamps.  
    
    Instead I'd like to see the government give supplies directly to
    receipients.  
    
    Each person gets n pounds of meat, s shirts, shoes, etc., per 
    week/month/year.  They get no money.  Rent is essentially 
    handled through housing projects that are clean, well policed, 
    maintained, and habitable - but only that.  Each family gets a 
    small apartment.  The size of the apartment is the same whether 
    they have no kids or twelve kids - encourage moderation.  No frills.
               
    Legitimate education is available (free) for those that want it
    (at city, state, or federal schools).  Basic medical care is available 
    free for those that NEED it (i.e. no frivolous nose jobs, prescription 
    sun glasses, etc.).
    
    To "pay" for these supplies, work must be performed, but the work
    + education should not add up to more than 50 or so hours per week.
    Work does not need to be related to education, but if possible that
    would be preferable.  Work could be things like building roads,
    buildings, gardening, hospital orderly, etc.  Education could consist
    of anything from technical training to an undergraduate university degree.  
    
    I realise people will complain that they're being treated like 
    prisoners/cattle/whatever, but I think at that point that they need
    incentive to go out and earn their own money.  Make welfare something
    that people can survive on, but nothing else.  
                 
    Note that through all of this, no money, and no high frills materials
    are provided.  Clothes should only be serviceable.  Same applies
    to food (nutritious, but no filet mignon), glasses, etc.
    

    re .14 and providing "goods", not money
    
    It would perhaps serve to make the rest of us feel good that our
    tax money was spent on what *we* consider to be the "right" things,
    to allot public assistance in goods such as n pounds meat, s shirts
    etc.  However, this takes away the person's chance to practice making
    choices for themselves, deciding how to spend money wisely.  If
    you want people to get off welfare and be responsible adults, treating
    them like children is not going to help.
    
    My $.02
    
    I have 3 friends, all single mothers, all very strong-willed, 
    intelligent people who believe that God pretty much helps those
    who help themselves.  All three have experienced AFDC for periods
    of time ranging from 9 months to 6 years.  
    
    One was abandoned with a 9-month-old infant.  She accepted AFDC
    for 9 months, which she experienced as the most hope-demolishing
    experience of her life.  All the messages she got from the AFDC
    people were negative, patronizing, and forbidding.  She quit
    cold-turkey after 9 months, feeling that three months more with
    the system would sap her confidence and will to the point she would
    never escape.  She now owns her own business.
    
    The second married pregnant at 15 and was abandoned a year later. She
    got into an experimental tuition-assistance program in Michigan which
    trained her as an executive secretary, and was promoted out into the
    workforce 18 months later.  (Her sister, also on AFDC, provided day
    care for the baby while she was in school.) She said the training
    program was the ONLY part of AFDC that encouraged participants to
    TRY, to think, or to do anything for themselves at all.  Her annual
    tax contribution now exceeds the tuition assistance she received.

    The third woman has three pre-school children.  The economy where
    she lives has not seen the "Reagan revolution" -- the few jobs that
    are available pay minimum wage and have no medical insurance. She
    calculated that after paying medical insurance and day care, she
    would be in debt $10/week if she went to work -- and we haven't
    even discussed food, shelter, and clothing yet.  There is no training
    program in her area and no daycare assistance.  She wants off AFDC
    but can't justify in her own mind depriving her children of medical
    insurance.  So she's stays stuck in the system.
    
    All three of these women recognize that nets can be used as traps
    as well as safety devices.  Surely there are enough others like
    them to warrant a large-scale assistance program that helps people
    to make it on their own.  The system we have just doles out a money
    fix to the ever-more-dependent.

    how I grew up...

    when my husband and I split up in 79, I had no job, and was pretty
    limited in marketable skills.  My husband skipped town, so there
    was no child support.  I went to social services and signed up for
    adc. adc included well baby clinics for shots, etc. and also
    child care provided by the united way.  Then I went and applied for 
    food stamps.  I recieved 125 for both my daughter and myself for
    one month.  food stamps will only cover edible by humans food items
    so dog food, toliet paper, soap are not included.  I could get soap
    and toliet paper from charity groups. when the food ran out there
    were soup kitchens. then I signed up for hud. there was a 1 year 
    waiting list and I was desperate then, so went on the list, but 
    looked for something I could afford. we ended up in a little 2 room
    cottage apartment.  rent and utilities were paid by a neighborhood
    help center ran by united way. 
    I started working at dec for the minimum wage class 1 pay, I started
    having to pay $25 a week for daycare at a united way daycare center,
    $25 a month for food stamps.
    We could eat, we had a place to stay, and I could afford toliet
    paper.  I bought all our clothes at goodwill/salvation army.  
    It took 2 years to get rid of all assistance. If I hadn't had the 
    chance to use  United way, food stamps, adc, I don't know where I 
    would be today.  certainly not doing the job I am today.  I have
    been at dec almost 9 years and am a software specialist in networks.
    I sound like a commercial for united way, but thats ok, I lived
    it.

    vivian

    
    You might want to check out books/articles By Frances Fox Piven
    (i'm not sure is she is still at Boston University) and Michael
    Lewis' _The Culture of Inequality_ for different anaylses of the
    welfare system.
    
    Ann Marie

The following reply is from the previous anonymous noter.


________________________________________________________

Re: .11

  I'm glad by experience with Welfare was of help to you.

Re: all

  I've heard a lot here and other places about how "unskilled" Welfare
  recipients are and how all these people need is a skill to get off Welfare.
  If I recall correctly someone else who responded to this note said she
  did just that.

  With this train of thought in mind, what does it say for the _skilled_ 
  person who receives or tries to receive welfare?  At the time I asked for 
  help, I had 7 1/2 years with Digital and 12 years worth of "marketable 
  skills".  I don't need training - I AM trained.  But, the above train of
  thought almost sounds like I must have something wrong with me - skilled
  but still in need of Welfare assistance.  

  My point is, don't assume that only _unskilled_ people need help, even the
  _skilled_ have problems, too.  This world is full of problems: big and 
  little, emotional or financial - and it affects everyone  - skilled and
  unskilled.

    The following response is from a member of our community who wishes
    to remain anonymous at this time.
    
    						=maggie
    
    ===================================================================

    I feel if someone needs assistance then they should receive it.  No one
    should be hungry or living out on the streets.  The thing I have a
    problem with is that I have two children and only my income, I pay
    nearly 200.00 a week in daycare, 600.00 for an apartment and am barely
    making it.  I receive minimum child support from my x-husband of one
    child.  The other child's father and I were going out and I got
    pregnant and he took off, I am working to locate him through the
    welfare office to have him pay support (there is a subdivision of the
    welfare department that will search, locate and bring a father/mother
    to court for a fee of 25.00 for anyone, not just welfare recipients).
    I am not on welfare, but thought what the heck I have been paying the
    system for a long time, why not try to get food stamps. Well they told
    me no way, you make way to much money (HA!) ya right and I pay it all
    out as quickly as I get it.  (BTW, I start my second job this weekend!) 

    But, the thing that really pisses me off is there are many woman living
    with men who work (be it under the table or whatever) and they also are
    collecting welfare and have section 8 (low income housing), and want
    for nothing. There are many people who know how to screw the system,
    just like people who get laid off and then go work under the table and
    collect unemployment. 

    I dislike the welfare system the way it is currently run.  But I
    do think there should be some sort of safety net for those who really
    need it.
    
    There's something wrong with a system that a woman (non-mother) or man
    who cannot make ends meet on a minimum wage job can go have a baby and
    have all of her needs taken care of forever.  This same system does
    not like 2-parent families, to the point that I've seen families
    decide that the man will "leave", she get the welfare, and he comes
    back to "visit" when the caseworker isn't around.  They should give
    minimal assistance to everyone - not just people with children.
    Also, there should be attempts, as much as possible, to keep families
    together if money/jobs is the only problem.
    
    There's also something wrong with a system that pays more than a
    minimum wage job.  There's something wrong with it when people with
    minimum wage jobs are also collecting food stamps.  Essentially,
    that means we (taxpayers) are subsidizing businesses that underpay
    their workers.
    
    I would support a system that helps *fast* if needed, encourages
    the able-bodied to spend ~40 hours/week in some combination of public
    works, training, and looking for work.  Then, when they do get off,
    to have a pay-back scheme.
    
    I'm quite turned off by a woman I know who has a baby, is on welfare,
    the baby's father took off (not really her fault), who lives in
    a *nice* apartment.  Her new boyfriend told her she could get an
    education and get off the welfare.  She started taking *one* class
    at a trade school, for an hour a week.  She "just didn't have time"
    for the class.  After she quit school there, her baby fell out of
    a second story window due to inadequate supervision.  I don't really
    feel this woman should have responsibility for a puppy, much less
    a growing human.  She'll never get off - she doesn't have the
    inclination.  I also worry about the future of the baby not getting
    adequate supervision and parenting...but apparently not bad enough
    for social services to take the baby away.  They got involved when
    the baby landed in the hospital...this will come due to society
    in about 18 years.
    
    Another woman, with 3 children, has a husband who leaves her with
    these kids.  She goes on welfare for a time, uses the training
    assistance, and lands a good job, and leaves the welfare.  Great.
    I'd like to see more of scenario #2 than #1.  But for this to happen
    the person has to *want* to make things work.
    
    Other people have no choice due to handicap.  These people need
    to be supported for life, and there is really no choice.
    
    I'd certainly like to see the incentives for having *more* children to
    put on the welfare roles eliminated.  If they can't get off the welfare
    roles after some period of time, I'd still recommend sterilizing them.
    This is for the welfare dregs, not the genuinely
    down_on_their_luck_temporarily_needy.  I've been down this "cruelty"
    rathole in WN-V1.  I don't think it's cruel to prevent people who
    clearly can't take responsibility for themselves from placing
    additional responsibility on taxpayers. 
    
    Elizabeth

I seems to me there's something wrong with a minimum wage that is not livable.
I saw the movie version of the Grapes Of Wrath recently, and the scenes where
they're cutting down the amount of money paid for picking oranges to below
subsistence suddenly popped into my mind as I read this.

Also, I was reading a DEC culture paper recently, and one of the cultural
assumptions it calls out follows (I quote):

        PEOPLE ARE CREATIVE, HARD WORKING, SELF-GOVERNING, AND CAN LEARN 

The logical extension for me is that if someone at DEC doesn't seem to be, then
it's probably a problem with the group they're in (ie - immediate culture). I
wonder if DEC is so different from the rest of the world, or if that assumption
is flat out wrong.
    
Lately, I've been trying to find solutions that are 'carrot' instead of 'stick'
to test out the old adage.
	Mez

>I seems to me there's something wrong with a minimum wage that is not livable.

 I guess it depends what you mean by livable. If you mean you think that a 
minimum wage earner should be able to support a family, disagree with you.
Minimum wage is reserved for the jobs that require virtually no skills. It is
unreasonable to expect that an unskilled person should be able to support an
entire family as the sole wage earner. The economy of our country could never
support that much of a draw on the money supply.

 If you look at the economics of the situation, it would be impossible to have
minimum wage at a level where a MW earner could support a family. It couldn't
happen. The cost for skilled labor would have to go up very high to compensate
skilled workers- if it didn't nobody would bother to take the time and expend
the effort to become skilled. Thus our entire economy would collapse.

 To me there's something wrong with a cost of living that makes it very 
difficult to support a family on $50K/yr. To me there's something wrong with a
system that demotivates people to improve themselves and become skilled. To me
there's something wrong with a system that makes it difficult to afford to 
become skilled.

 The key is education. It cannot be overstressed. People who refuse to become
educated doom themselves to a life of poverty (except in special cases).Life
owes no one a free ride. You actually have to work to get someplace. It's not
all fun and games.

 The Doctah

    
>WAHOO::LEVESQUE "Torpedo the dam, full speed astern" 27 lines  20-APR-1989 09:
    

>>I seems to me there's something wrong with a minimum wage that is not livable.

> I guess it depends what you mean by livable. If you mean you think that a 
>minimum wage earner should be able to support a family, disagree with you.
>Minimum wage is reserved for the jobs that require virtually no skills. It is
>unreasonable to expect that an unskilled person should be able to support an
>entire family as the sole wage earner. The economy of our country could never
>support that much of a draw on the money supply.
>

 >To me there's something wrong with a cost of living that makes it very 
>difficult to support a family on $50K/yr. 
    
    
    Doctah, I think what you are saying is inconsistent. It seems that
    when other people are not making it, then that's just the price we
    pay to have a stable economy, nothing wrong with it. But if you
    or I are not making enough money, even with our college degrees,
    etc., then there is something wrong and something should be done.
    
    If you think there is something wrong with the fact that you can't
    "support" a family on 50k a year, how can you say there isn't anything
    wrong if you can't support a family on minimum wage? Maybe those
    50k earners just need more education, so they can earn 100k. I think
    you are drawing an arbitrary line.
    
    Did I misunderstand you? Or are your priorities going to the wrong
    group of people here?  We should change the system for the 50k people,
    but not for the unskilled?
    
    BTW, I agree that education is critical, but it is a little silly
    to talk of "people who refuse to become educated". People decide
    to become educated when they have successful role models who are
    educated, when they have the money and time to become educated,
    and when they are well-fed so that their brains can develop to become
    educated (see poverty note).      
    
                                                   
    Roberta
    
    
    P.S. Thank you for the vital information that life isn't all fun and 
    games. I needed my daily dose of conservative cliches today.
    

    
    
    
    

 The Doctah

    Note 30 in DLOACT::HUMANISM has a related discussion, regarding
    personal responsiblity and the tendency today for many people to
    refuse to accept it.  It gets into the subject of welfare, etc.
    so someone might find it of interest.  Keypad 7 and all...
    
    Regarding that issue, I agree fully with whoever said a while back that
    no one should expect to be able to support a family as the sole
    wage-earner on minimum wage.  If you don't have the skills or the
    intelligence or whatever you need to earn enough money to support a
    family, then don't have a family, or at least don't have a family that
    requires supporting (e.g. a working wife would help, not hurt the
    financial situation).  The world doesn't owe anyone a living.  We do
    the best we can with what we have, and if what we have isn't as much as
    we'd like, then we do without things we really want. Those things might
    be material; they might not. 
    
    On the other hand, no one should have to go hungry because they can't
    support THEMSELVES on minimum wage.  Every working American should have
    enough money to provide the essentials:  food, clothing, and shelter
    for him or herself.  Well, perhaps I should have listed another
    essential:  basic medical care.  I just DON'T feel that those
    essentials should include the right to have babies when there's no
    money to feed them. 
    
    							Pat

    Re -1.
    
    If all the people who needed help and a living wage planned their
    lives around the realities of their intelligence, educational level,
    social background and other factors of environment and genetics,
    there wouldn't be a problem.  What about a person whose breadwinning
    spouse deserts leaving children to feed?  What about a person whose
    physical problems after an accident or illness (unplanned for) leave
    them with huge bills and reduced capacity for work?  I should hope
    that we have compassion for those in "reduced circumstances." 
    
    Dondi

re: Dondi

 I don't think that anyone will bitch too loud if we restrict welfare to those
who have gotten themselves into a situation where they need a little temporary
help to pull them through. What people get upset about is second and third 
generation welfare cases, people who have been on welfare for years, and people
who have no intention of ever getting off welfare. Most everyone accepts a 
certain small percentage of people that are unable to support themselves and
should be given support by "society." People don't accept supporting (as opposed
to helping) the indolent.

 re:pat

>    On the other hand, no one should have to go hungry because they can't
>    support THEMSELVES on minimum wage.  Every working American should have
>    enough money to provide the essentials:  food, clothing, and shelter
>    for him or herself.  Well, perhaps I should have listed another
>    essential:  basic medical care.

 I agree with you. The one distinction I'd like to make (even though it seems
obvious) is that the basic essentials are just that- basic and essential.
Too many low income people squander their money on high cost essentials- 
the best cuts of meat, expensive beer, top shelf liquor, designer clothes etc-
then have the gall to complain that they don't make enough money! Filet mignon,
Mo�t et Chandon, Sergio Valent� jeans are _not_ essentials. 

re: Robberta

>     Doctah, I think what you are saying is inconsistent. It seems that
>    when other people are not making it, then that's just the price we
>    pay to have a stable economy, nothing wrong with it. But if you
>    or I are not making enough money, even with our college degrees,
>    etc., then there is something wrong and something should be done.
    
>    If you think there is something wrong with the fact that you can't
>    "support" a family on 50k a year, how can you say there isn't anything
>    wrong if you can't support a family on minimum wage? Maybe those
>    50k earners just need more education, so they can earn 100k. I think
>    you are drawing an arbitrary line.

 It is perfectly consistent with the rest of my note and premise. The premise is
that unskilled workers cannot be paid on a scale commensurate with skilled
workers because their contribution to the economy and GNP are not equivalent. To
do so would be economic suicide for the entire country.

 Skilled workers are paid more because of the laws of supply and demand- the 
more skilled you are, the fewer the workers are in supply. But it goes further
than that. A person employed in a service industry does not contribute as much
to the GNP as does someone in the manufacturing industry because services are
not durable while many manufactured products are. (Ok- a gross 
oversimplification- but I have work to do). 

 The long and the short of it is this: in order for anyone to "make it" in the 
US, the economy must remain alive. A dead economy allows only the independently
wealthy to survive. One of the ways to kill an economy is to raise the costs
of doing business to the point where it is unprofitable to have industry.
One way of raising the costs is to overpay your workers. Now I do not think that
corporate heads should keep all of the money themselves. Far from it (at least
until I become one :-). On the other hand, I recognize that paying unskilled
workers more than they are worth is a good method to kill the goose that lays
golden eggs (by causing inflation and the cost of goods to skyrocket to the 
point where we are totally uncompetitive in the world market.)

 Doc

    
    doctah,
    i don't disagree that skilled labor should be paid more than
    unskilled labor, but I do think even unskilled labor should make
    enough money to keep body and soul together...for themselves and
    their families.  Unfortunately, we can't ignore the fact, that 
    today there exist folks with insufficient education/skills to 
    move into a higher paid job, and they DO have families...so we have
    to have a system which allows them to get by.  
    I agree the husband and wife should both work--assuming of course
    there is adequate *free* or minimal cost child care.  If not, then
    someone needs to be with the kids...i think 'latchkey' children
    have a much harder time adjusting, caring, learning, and generally
    becoming productive members of society. (not that they don't...just
    that its harder)
    Maybe i'm biased since i grew up in an 'unskilled' laborer's home.
    My dad had only a 5th grade education, so couldn't even think about
    those 'higher paying jobs'...but we did ok, because of the steelworkers
    union, and wages which allowed even the unskilled to make enough
    to feed their families.  Of course, in this day and age, no one
    should have that little education...we should have a school system
    which teaches the kids to read, write, do math, etc, as you mentioned,
    and also *motivates* them to learn.  If the schools could just instill
    the desire to learn in these kids (and the parents too for that
    matter) then much could be improved upon.
    Sorry to have gotten on a tangent here.  The original request was
    for welfare info.  I agree with most of those previous replies...it
    was meant to be a 'help' not a means of support...and should do
    only that.  If the second and third generation welfare 'abusers'
    are going to get off...they will have to see something better, have
    to see that working actually Pays MOre than welfare (not vice versa
    as is too often the case today).  
    
    deb
    

I'm reminded of a song I heard yesterday with the chorus "It's the end of the
world as we know it." Yes; we do have an economy that _depends_ on some amount
of cheap labor. I do not think it is humane to have a society depend on an
entire percentage not making enough money to live off of. And I do not think it
is efficient either. I notice in this, and many other topics, people will chose
the most gut-reaction examples to get their point across. I'm not interested in
doing that, nor in listening to that (yes, I am well acquainted with NEXT
UNSEEN, though with my co-mod hat on, I am constrained to use it far less that
I care to). I think it would be fun for those of us who agreed (more or less)
with the above statements to try to work through what kind of economy would be
necessary. That, of course, would be another topic. And, luckily, we'd have
critics around so that we wouldn't get too blue sky :-).
	Mez

 The problem with education lies not only with our schools, but also with the
parents and society in general. As a nation, we have gotten lazier. We expect 
to get something for nothing. We don't like to have to work. Productivity has
gone down significantly as people demand more breaks, days off, etc. This
reflects back to the kids. They pick up on the fact that daddy calls in sick
when he really isn't. They see mommy leaving work early. They see dad sitting
on the couch guzzling beer when there's work to be done. And they think that's
the way it's supposed to be.

 There seems to be a general aversion to work and other unpleasantries in
teenagers today. It existed when I was a teenager, it seems to have progressed
(regressed?) though. Kids don't want to work. They want to play all of the time.

 The biggest problem with our education system is the attitude of the students.
The system is unable to change that. Unmotivated students do poorly on exams
because they fail to do their homework and study. When the whole class is this 
way, the teacher ends up slowing down and presenting less material. Then, when
the students learn less, the teacher or the system is held responsible.

 Parents have to become more involved with education. Too many parents think of
their child's education like a dry-cleaning service: drop off your kids and
pick them up when they're done. 

 Motivation has to come from within. Parents should also push their children
to do their best. Nobody seems to care about doing their best anymore. Mediocre
is a way of life.

 Last week, I went to the high school with my oldest to see a presentation on
college. As she is a junior, it is time to start checking out colleges, taking
the SATs etc. She was dumbfounded. I kept saying "this is what I been telling
you all along. Sound familiar?" She realizes now that it is too late to start
making the grades so she can get into the college of her choice. She also
knows that need based scholarships are out of the question. Worst of all, she
knows that she doesn't really know how to study. She'll have a very hard time
of things. I think this presentation should be made when the kids are freshmen,
so they know what colleges will be looking for. As juniors, it's too late to 
change things.

 The Doctah

    	A little thought. If you know that someone is working under
    the table and screwing the system, it's your DUTY as a citizen and
    taxpayer to turn them in. Uncle Sam will give you a tax abatement
    for turning in those who don't pay. 
    
    	This could be moved to another string and a whole new topic about
    "Turning In The Cheats" and the morality of it......maybe I will.
    
    Ken

    Would the author of the base note still like examples of
    (how shall I phrase this?) non-abuses of the welfare system?

    
    Let me see if I can respond here without getting emotional.
    
    In 1975 I was laid off from my job, and collected unemployment,
    while working a part time job, there were adjustments made in the
    amount I collected, but I have a need to work. After about 9 months
    of collecting and looking for a real job, I became ill and was
    hospitalized. When I went for my check after leaving the hospital,
    I was told that I could no longer collect because I wasn't available
    for work while in the hospital, and that I would have to reapply
    and that meant also another waiting period. My refrigerator was
    empty, the cupboards were bare. My neighbors were feeding us (me
    and two teenagers). Fortunately I was living in subsidized housing
    so I didn't have a problem there. I swalloed my pride and went to
    the welfare office, this was the best thing that I did.  They
    immediatly gave me a food voucher (this is not food stamps) asked
    me the status of my rent and utilities, to see if I needed assistance.
    While this was all happening, there were several interuptions do
    to the fact that there was no recptionist. The intake worker commented
    that she would be glad when they filled that position. I asked if
    I could have the job. She looked at me with a funny look and said
    she would have to ask the person in charge, because they had never
    had an applicant ask for a job during the intake interview. Well
    to make a long story short, I got the job. My primary responsibilities
    were to answer the phone and pre screen applicants.
    
    While doing that job I found out about the CETA program and found
    out that CETA had a job working as a social worker. I was accepted
    into the program and worked it for a year, unfortunately CETA didn't
    follow through with all the things that were supposed to happen
    and I was going to be out of a job again. In the mean time I applied
    at DEC and was hired. The welfare department supported me in my
    job search, paid my milage for 3 months kept me on food stamps for
    3 months and offered child care, which I didn't need. If it weren't
    for welfare I don't think I would be where I am today. In my opinion
    that is what welfare is for, not for people to live on. It should
    be an assist and after a certain period shoud be terminated. I probably
    could have made it with out the last 3 months of help, but it made
    it easier for me to get on my feet. 

    re .35
    
    Bravo!!
    
    /Charlotte
    

    re a bunch back..
    
    I live in colorado so I am having a problem understanding not being
    able to afford to live on less then 50K.  It is possible to rent
    a 2 bedroom apartment for under $300. utilites in apartments run
    about $30-40 a month. Cablevision even cost $11 a month.  Back when
    I started at DEC, along with a part-time waitress job on weekends,
    I cleared 12K.  When I got off of welfare, food stamps etc, I thought
    I was rich, I made <16K. I paid all my own bills, raised my daughter,
    and lived in a pretty decent rental house.  Rent was $280.  Even
    now, I rent a two level townhouse for $450, utilities are always 
    under $100 and am buying a new car.
    
    So maybe its the part of the country, but if I was starving on a 50K income,
    I would look into relocating. 
    
    Vivian  
   
    

    
    Vivian,
    
    No, it's not just the part of the country, although you can't get
    a two bedroom, or even a studio, in the Boston area for $300. It
    has a lot to do with people's expectations. 
    
    If their family can't take expensive vacations, dine out a lot,
    have a second home, then a lot of people feel they aren't making
    it. 
    
    There must be something wrong if these poor souls can't "make it"
    on 50k, huh?
                              
    Roberta
                                                             

    This reminds me of the newspaper stories of how judges and congressmen
    were complaining of how they can't make it on 80 to 130K_:-).  

    Two bedroom condos go in the vicinity of $700 - $900/month in the
    southern NH area, the sales price on the same condos are $100K minimum.
    Houses under 100K are falling apart in most cases.  Starter homes
    in Merrimack, NH are 120K - 130K.
    
    If you have electric heat, utilities can cost you a fortune around
    here, especially if you are serviced by PSNH (public service company
    of NH).  A friend pays close to 200/month in the winter just to
    keep her two bedroom condo at 65.
    
    Just wanted to give outside New England people some perspective.
                                     

    How to make $50K disappear...
    
     Well-
    
     Mortgage (less than the rent we payed in Ma)   $900/mo
     Condo fee                                       100/mo
     car payments (total of two/ two income earners  600/mo
     debt payments (overdrafts, loans etc)           300/mo
     credit cards (debt reduction, not used anymore  200/mo
     food                                            400/mo
     insurance                                       150/mo
     payroll deductions                              100/mo
     daycare                                         400/mo
     property taxes                                  200/mo
     utilities (phone,electricity,gas,water)         150/mo
     gas                                             150/mo
     clothes (5 people including 2 teenagers)        200/mo
                                                     ------
                                                     3850/mo
    
     This works out to 46,200 per year in expenditures.
     This does not include car repairs, tires or maintenance, and we put
    alot of mileage on our cars. Out of the $50K there is simply not a
    whole lot of discretionary spending, especially since I have not
    factored in Federal and state income taxes (puts the total over $50K).
    
     But I don't want Roberta to accuse me of crying poor. I'm not. i'm
    just trying to make a living in the 80's with dependants.
    
    The Doctah

on cost of living:

It is not possible to find anything, not even a one room apartment in a 
bad neighborhood, in Boston for $300 a month.  My mother moved here 
(Boston) from Washington DC over a year ago, and the best she has been 
able to do for that amount of money is rent a room in a friend's house 
with 2 other boarders.

I have a 3 bedroom apartment (absolutely necessary with my 2 teenagers 
of vastly different genders and temperaments) in a triple-decker in a
moderate kind of working class neighborhood (on the "good" side of the
drug-dealing border a couple streets away, but hardly in the restored
Victorian mansion neighborhood down by the pond), and it costs a $1000 a
month.  It is possible to get apartments like mine in bad neighborhoods
or in poorer condition for around $800 a month, though, so I admit to
indulging myself with the wasteful luxury of not having my house broken
into every week or so and with having good plumbing.  I have an '83
Nissan with 120,000 miles on it (in need of an engine job soon), that
costs me $900 a year to insure on the streets of Boston.  It costs a
$110 a month, on a continuous budget plan, to heat my home with gas.  I
am not indulging myself with clothes, cars, eating out, or designer
drugs.  I don't take vacations that don't involve camping in tents, but
I do not relocate because I want to live where I do with the family and
friends and neighbors that I have, and because I would rather be in debt
than live in a wasteland where no one has ever heard of Akira Kurosawa
and there isn't a weekly gay newspaper.  I have learned the hard way
that "cost of living" isn't all there is to "cost of living". 

    thanks for clearing up my misperception.  I suppose the word here
    is choice(like the way I snuck *that* word in?).  Like Catherine 
    has explained, she has her reasons for not relocating.  my point 
    is, *I* would relocate if I couldn't afford to live on my income.  
    obviously, I will never move east. :-)
    
    The townhome I live in is 2 bedrooms, with garage. In a very nice,
    established, safe part of town. it has over 1500 sf.  I know that
    I am paying more for my townhome then most people pay here in colorado.
    If I wanted to buy it, it would cost 45K. another reason to not
    move east. 
    
    My basic premise is that not all parts of the country require in
    excess of 50K incomes. ok?
    
    vivian    

    Alas,... not all parts of the country offer jobs either.
    
    (sigh)

    re:44... and 45K for a 1500 sq ft townhome.
    
    Oh dear!  In "fashionable" areas of Boston, 45K might not
    still buy a deeded garage space.
    
    	Pennie Who_does_NOT_live_in_a_fashionable_area_of_Boston

        It would be very difficult for a family to make it on $50K here
    in the San Jose area these days unless they bought their house five
    or more years ago.  The current median house price is about $220K
    and requires a $58K annual income to qualify for a loan assuming
    a 20% ($44K) down payment.  Housing prices increased by 17.4% in
    the first three months of 1989.
    
         Taxes on a house bought in August of 1989 for $186K are $2K
    a year.  And California taxes usually approach 10% as your income
    increases.
    
         The rent on a 2 bedroom apartment in the area ranges from $600
    for a very bad place in a bad neighborhood, to over $1200 for a
    great place.  A median place is probably about $850 a month now.
    
         I feel sorry for the folks who work in the lower paying service
    occupations in the area.  Unless one has parents who can assist
    in the purchase of a home, or a couple of good jobs one can't afford
    a house in the area.  I fear for the area's economy.
    
    ASP

    Since we are going down the rathole or side topic of affordable
    housing..
    
    In north west Worcester county where I live (and where there
    are few jobs) the average price of a house is still around
    $85,000 (from a quick scan of the papers) and rent for two
    bedrooms often with utilities runs from the mid $300 to 
    the high $400 a month.
    
    We have a 200 year old house with a lot of land on an old
    dirt road that I doubt would sell for  much more than $120,000
    because of the location.
    
    So in Mass and probably in New Hampshire as well you trade off
    lower prices for longer commutes.
    
    We think we came out ahead but we are going by environment not
    dollars.
    
    Bonnie

    
    p.s. there are many rural poor out here..people who live in
    substandard housing or live year round in camps or in old
    ill kept trailors..
    
    the services are minimal and there is (obviously) no public
    transportation

    I read somewhere that someone bought a parking space in Boston
    which cost 60K!  
    
    Anna
    

    My 2 cents worth of the rathole...
    
    FYI- We live in an 80K home in a nice area, have all the earthly
    comforts, drive to the mountains in 10 minutes and to work in 10
    minutes (the other way), have no great long lines at supermarket
    (or big prices either), and no big traffic mess at rush hour.  
    BTW- we do NOT make $50K (together).
    
    I guess what I am getting at is- what are you willing to sacrifice
    for control over your life?  The pay here in SLC may not be great, 
    (no one but the Prez makes 50K a year), and sometimes when you call
    back east they ask you what country you are calling from (talk about
    remote!!!) but crime is low, the air is clean, people are friendly 
    and you can still afford to enjoy life. (I am really NOT trying to 
    sell real estate :-)
    
    Maybe living in Salt Lake seems boring to you, but I like it. 
    
    Louise
    

    
	I am WAY behind on notes in this conference, but I am
	glad I found this one.

	I think that back in =wn=v1 I entered a note about my
	experience with Public Assistance so I am not going to
	re-state it entirely.

	In 1972-73 I was a single parent with an almost x who
	paid $20.00 a week support for two small children.

	I re-married went to college - have a degree in History
	and still could not get a job that paid much more than
	minimum wage.

	I divoiced my second husband 2 years after I joined DEC
	becoming again single parent and still not making enough
	to support the three of us.

	I am now a software engineer and I am wondering how I
	survived 'cause I still am not making 50K and I have two
	kids in college.

	NO ONE should have to go through what I have no matter how
	educated they are or are not.

	_peggy


		(-)
		 |
			Education does not equate the ability
			to support oneself and ones children

			Let's deal with reality not ideaology here.