poverty traps (Re: Sa

Sun Oct 26 08:24:48 PST 1997

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

 -=> Quoting In:anon at anon.efga.org (Monty Cantsin) to Harka <=-

 In> The government is not Janice's friend.  It takes away $18,000
 In> from her each year and plunges her into poverty, sort of.  If
 In> you are appealing to the government to assist Janice, first
 In> ask it to get the hell out of the way.  (I realize you may
 In> just be saying that Janice's plight is unavoidable, not that
 In> she should be helped with government money.)

Hmm, we all agree, that the government is not somebody to be
trusted to be your friend. However, we also know the amount of laws
possible to "violate" and the consequences that would have. And one
of the worst things you can do is evading taxes. At least when they
clamp down on you. Not something, I'd recommend to a mother of four
kids (that she really doesn't want to give up to
government-so-schill-workers). Jim Choate commented on that already,
so I save further words.

 In> Janice should be baby sitting.  Were she to take in 4 kids at
 In> $500/month, she would make as much as her job and be able to
 In> watch her own kids during the same time.

True in short-term. But after 8 kids have been rummaging around in
your apartment every day (even without licence and off-the-books and
all that stuff) you can definitely expect to spend a couple of
grands on repairs in a matter of a month.

 In> Telephone: $20/month
 In> Electricity: $40/month (?)
 In> Heat: $100/month (?)
 In> Food: $600/month (generous)
 In> Goodwill Clothes: $100/month (generous)
 In> Total: $860/month

You obviously don't live in NYC (and don't have kids). It costs her
alone six bucks a day just to get to work and back (with public
transportation).

 In> The food is generous because four of the five are kids, the
 In> oldest only being 12.  Kids don't each much.

You're confirming my suspicion about not having kids :)

 In> Of course, there is no law that requires one to live in New
 In> York City.

As a matter of fact there is. At least for her. She's _required_ by
the divorce-court to live within a 60-mile-zone of her ex-husband
and father of her kids (he's in the City too). For
visitation-rights and all that (i.e. she can't move out of state
without his approval or be charged with kidnapping, if she does it
anyway). A thing applicable to probably hundreds of thousands of
people (women mostly) in the US. And that alone limits one's "free
choice of employers" quite severely.

 In> It seems pretty clear that making money was not her top
 In> priority. It's never been a secret that teachers are not top
 In> earners.  I'm not seeing a description of somebody who really
 In> tried to make money in a serious way.

Talking about freedom at the same time then is an oxymoron and
you're confirming my "criticisms about the free market" (Yes Tim, I
have re-considered my position without changing my perspective in
the end).
Capitalism in it's current form does not allow for individual
freedom for most people (exceptions apply), because they have to
make the money to be free (independent).
If that requires doing for years, what you don't want to do
(working in computers, although you hate them and all you really
want to do is paint and live as an artist but can't afford to, for
example), then that means by definition, that freedom has to be
given up. At least temporarely and as mentioned before, that can be
a _very_ long time for most people (who have been born into the
"wrong" families, for example).

 In> Good for her.  It sounds like Janice may have the strength of
 In> character to turn her situation around.

Btw., I'll forward her all of the advice and suggestions everybody
gave. Thanks for everybodies effort and consideration of the (for
her personal) matter.

Also, (violins or not :)) :

It was not my primary intention to cause tears of compassion for
Janices personal situation (a lot of people on and off the list
have a rough time too to get on in life), but to introduce some
realism into the discussion of "free choice of employers".
Cypherpunks sometimes tend to become somewhat theoretical about
things, neglecting the possibility, that it may not apply on a
larger (real-life)scale.
Pointing such things out I regard as a very important thing to the
effectiveness of Cypherpunks-discussions and subsequent influence.
The argument of an (for everybody) existing "free choice of
employers", for example, should by now be seen as rather relativ, if
not completely negated.

Further it is a social issue of importance also for Cypherpunks.
Obviously we don't want governments "taking care of people", but
desire individual freedom, self-determination and independence
instead. However, as proven such things are possible in the "free
market" only to a limited degree, i.e not applicable by default to
everybody, IMHO.

Do I have a solution? Honestly, I don't and I wish I had. That
doesn't prevent me from seeing (and pointing out) things, that I
don't agree with when looking out the window or talking with
friends, who are in a very different position than I might be in.

If anybody _does_ have a solution, that enables _all_ people
(regardless of background) to become truly free and also provides a
realistic way to achieve that (for everybody), then I'll be more
than happy to listen and to adjust my own perspective.

Ciao

Harka

/*************************************************************/
/* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */
/* PGP public key available upon request.  [KeyID: 04174301] */
/* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5  28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */
/*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/
/* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve  */
/* and may all living beings find the way to happiness...    */
/*************************************************************/

... "It is better to die on our feet than to live on our knees."

If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...