根据看nickel and dimed 的经验，我认为得看了书算细帐才能明白过来，所以到图书馆订上。薪水微薄 Nickel And Dimed. American Working Poor
Again, I don't think the issue is whether one CAN save money in current circumstances, etc. These books discuss the issue of whether social and financial policies and market structure are conducive for or are against 1) poor people climb out of poverty and welfare, 2) middle-class couples raising children.
美国人是不是没事的时候都很有财政上的安全感 precisely because of the (I think) false impression propagated by the "American Dream." This is their frame of reference in their perception. Perhaps immigrants benefit from not having such perception and therefore manage their finance better. But I don't think that argument is enough reason not to impeach and try to improve social and financial policies.
美国人是不是没事的时候都很有财政上的安全感 precisely because of the (I think) false impression propagated by the "American Dream." This is their frame of reference in their perception. Perhaps immigrants benefit from not having such perception and therefore manage their finance better. But I don't think that argument is enough reason not to impeach and try to improve social and financial policies.
JUN啊, 在我的观点里, 存钱has everything to do with surviving and also raising kids. 如果一个家庭不能安排好自己的财务, 一有风吹雨打就破产, 怎么可能好好养孩子呢?
当然了, 我不是说社会制度不需要改进. 拿小K的比方来说, 文革停课, 绝大多数人读不出来, 是制度的问题. 现在还是有人读不出来, 而且这些人里面有很聪明, 只是不适合中国灌鸭式的教育方式. 中国的教育制度还是需要改进, 但是如果一个智商正常的人上不了大学, 十个里面有九个是因为自己不够努力, 不再是因为教育制度了.
改进社会制度的一个重要方面也许应该包括教育普通美国人他们生活的社会其实是非常不安全的, 稍不小心就会破产或者吃福利. 这样更多的人才可以survive.
当然了, 我不是说社会制度不需要改进. 拿小K的比方来说, 文革停课, 绝大多数人读不出来, 是制度的问题. 现在还是有人读不出来, 而且这些人里面有很聪明, 只是不适合中国灌鸭式的教育方式. 中国的教育制度还是需要改进, 但是如果一个智商正常的人上不了大学, 十个里面有九个是因为自己不够努力, 不再是因为教育制度了.
改进社会制度的一个重要方面也许应该包括教育普通美国人他们生活的社会其实是非常不安全的, 稍不小心就会破产或者吃福利. 这样更多的人才可以survive.
说一个具体的例子吧. 我们同一个县里, 大家按家庭住址入学, 不存在择优录取. 州里有小学, 初中, 高中统一标准化语言,数学, 科学考试, 有的学区近100%的及格率, 有的学区所有学校各项只有2%的及格率, 这语言2%及格的学生, 不见得是数学或者科学及格的那2%,很可能那几个学校就没有一个全科及格的. 那些孩子都是低智商么? 为什么从小学起就会差的那么大? 家庭, 社区, 学校经费. 怎么办? 搬家. 同样面积建筑质量装修的房子, 两个区可以差近十倍. 这是差区父母节省点钱能做到的么? 差区也并不是贫民窟, 多是有正当工作的蓝领和军营, 你要是过去看, 平平整整的小区, 前后院的房子, 和别的郊区也看不出太大区别.
再说个LONG TERM CARE的例子, 一人一年6万, 二十年是一百多万, 不包括医疗和生活开支, 美国平均收入的家庭怎么也攒不出来, 把家产都花完了不留车不留房子MEDICARE就可以付. 那么对平均收入的家庭, 从死工资里攒点小钱有什么意义.
教育美国人公共服务系统不可靠可能让大家努力省钱也可能让大家干脆要求进一步减少公共服务支出, 省得自己替别人填无底洞. 后者的可能性比较大.
再说个LONG TERM CARE的例子, 一人一年6万, 二十年是一百多万, 不包括医疗和生活开支, 美国平均收入的家庭怎么也攒不出来, 把家产都花完了不留车不留房子MEDICARE就可以付. 那么对平均收入的家庭, 从死工资里攒点小钱有什么意义.
教育美国人公共服务系统不可靠可能让大家努力省钱也可能让大家干脆要求进一步减少公共服务支出, 省得自己替别人填无底洞. 后者的可能性比较大.
如果一个智商正常的人上不了大学, 十个里面有九个是因为自己不够努力, 不再是因为教育制度了
I disagree with the assumption.
1) Not all students are 智商正常的人. By analogy, not all Americans have "normal" physical (including physiological) and intellectual abilities to work.
2) Even for all those who have the ability to work, there is the disparity between the pays for Enron's CEO and for Enron's janitor. Is the disparity fair and balanced? Does the janitor work 1/1 millionth as hard as Ken Lay?
3) When 1 in less than 5 people have no health insurance, the majority of whom work, I don't think one can say in good conscience 不再是因为制度了.
存上半年的生活费绝大多数人就可以安然度过难关, 生活重新回到轨道
The issue is those who can't find a job in 6 months or get sick and cannot work full time usually cannot 安然度过难关. And usually it's not their fault. If one says, "The system/society is not the problem," then the implication is that it is the individuals who are to be blamed. I disagree with this assessment.
Note that having children out of wedlock, ie, becoming a single mother, easily knocks one into poverty along with the children. One could easily blame the single mother for not using sufficient birth control means or being promiscuous. Is it fair to apply the same standards on every single mother? Is it fair to judge and blame equally single mothers in different geographical areas in different socioeconomic status? Is it fair to judge and blame women with different level of access to sex education, access to birth control, access to abortion, access to social support for birth control and abortion?
I disagree with the general implication that "If a working person is not able to save money and buy a house (or goes bankrupt, etc.) living in United States or Canada, it's his fault. He deserves it."
I disagree with the assumption.
1) Not all students are 智商正常的人. By analogy, not all Americans have "normal" physical (including physiological) and intellectual abilities to work.
2) Even for all those who have the ability to work, there is the disparity between the pays for Enron's CEO and for Enron's janitor. Is the disparity fair and balanced? Does the janitor work 1/1 millionth as hard as Ken Lay?
3) When 1 in less than 5 people have no health insurance, the majority of whom work, I don't think one can say in good conscience 不再是因为制度了.
存上半年的生活费绝大多数人就可以安然度过难关, 生活重新回到轨道
The issue is those who can't find a job in 6 months or get sick and cannot work full time usually cannot 安然度过难关. And usually it's not their fault. If one says, "The system/society is not the problem," then the implication is that it is the individuals who are to be blamed. I disagree with this assessment.
Note that having children out of wedlock, ie, becoming a single mother, easily knocks one into poverty along with the children. One could easily blame the single mother for not using sufficient birth control means or being promiscuous. Is it fair to apply the same standards on every single mother? Is it fair to judge and blame equally single mothers in different geographical areas in different socioeconomic status? Is it fair to judge and blame women with different level of access to sex education, access to birth control, access to abortion, access to social support for birth control and abortion?
I disagree with the general implication that "If a working person is not able to save money and buy a house (or goes bankrupt, etc.) living in United States or Canada, it's his fault. He deserves it."
Last edited by Jun on 2005-08-22 13:33, edited 1 time in total.
我没说社会制度不需要改进啊, JUN. 我百分之一百同意社会制度有许多需要改进的地方. 小情说的好学区坏学区差别那么大, 当然是非常不公平, 应该改变的情况. And again, nobody deserves to live like crap, no matter how they get there, no matter it's their own fault, or the society's fault.
我只是说在改进社会制度的同时, 每个人自己也许也需要改进自己的生活方式. There is situation that you cannot do anything. No matter how much effort you make, you will still be broken and bankcrupted. There is situation that you actually can do something. And my point is not everybody realized that there is something they could do to prepare for the worst case or even ever think about that worst case could happen to them. After all, nobody wants to go to bankruptcy, right? Especially in a society like in the States, Credit is so important.
The first couple in Two Income Trap deserves bankruptcy? Of course not. There is more things they could have done to prevent this to happen? I think there is. And I also said, if they have saved some money, this still could happen as no matter how much they saved (it is always limited for working class) there is still the possibility the husband cannot find a job in time. All I am saying is that if they have saved some money and have average luck then they might be able to prevent bankruptcy.
The example about Chinese education system might not be proper. But I kind of think no matter what kind of education system you have, it will never be possible that everybody deverses the chance they should. 100% fairness will always be a dream, not reality.
Although my English is so poor, I cannot help to type in English as it is so much faster. Hope it is readble.
我只是说在改进社会制度的同时, 每个人自己也许也需要改进自己的生活方式. There is situation that you cannot do anything. No matter how much effort you make, you will still be broken and bankcrupted. There is situation that you actually can do something. And my point is not everybody realized that there is something they could do to prepare for the worst case or even ever think about that worst case could happen to them. After all, nobody wants to go to bankruptcy, right? Especially in a society like in the States, Credit is so important.
The first couple in Two Income Trap deserves bankruptcy? Of course not. There is more things they could have done to prevent this to happen? I think there is. And I also said, if they have saved some money, this still could happen as no matter how much they saved (it is always limited for working class) there is still the possibility the husband cannot find a job in time. All I am saying is that if they have saved some money and have average luck then they might be able to prevent bankruptcy.
The example about Chinese education system might not be proper. But I kind of think no matter what kind of education system you have, it will never be possible that everybody deverses the chance they should. 100% fairness will always be a dream, not reality.
Although my English is so poor, I cannot help to type in English as it is so much faster. Hope it is readble.
Last edited by dropby on 2005-08-22 14:00, edited 2 times in total.
It doesn't make sense to blame them in any way. The only important thing to do is to help them. Also, kids are not only their parents' responsibility but the responsibility of the society. They will be working force of the future to support the society. It's so not fair to put the responsibility only on the shoulder of single moms.One could easily blame the single mother for not using sufficient birth control means or being promiscuous.
That said, for teenage girls, it is still very very very important for them to know how important it is to use sufficient birth control when they are not ready to be a mom even in the case that single mother's situation has been improved.
Is there any confliction between these two things? I think not.
That was more or less my analogy for poor people.It doesn't make sense to blame them in any way.
Beyond reasons within one's control, a person may go bankruptcy and fall into welfare but do not deserve to be blamed for it. It's similar to situations where some women become single mothers but do not deserved to be blamed for it.
What's more, becoming a single mother is a very significant reason for women and children to become poor and get on welfare.
There are also instances where single mother and poor people should take some responsibilities for their situation.
Same argument.
Whether to have children may be a shrug to some people, never to a few people, but an absolute YES for many couples. This is such a personal and emotional thing for most human beings (than God) and so important for human beings collectively as a species that it's a tragedy that the society cannot do more to support and optimize child-raising activities.
那钻石我也推荐你看看这本书，我觉得作者的深层主张是这个社会已经将女性的收入列为家庭不可或缺的经济来源，结果就是一系列模型，比如mortgage都建立在这个假设上。但是不但女性需要因为分娩，看护幼儿等暂时的离开职场，传统的breadearner男性也会失去工作。家庭的收入减少50%，作者认为在某些家庭，后果跟完全没有了收入一样。DeBeers wrote:嗯，好学区的房子是容易出手，不过如果买来是为了孩子上学，那出手得是多少年之后的事儿了。
我一个朋友去年买了这边的房子，学区还不是顶好，已经很贵，她刚生了孩子，跟我抱怨房子买的太贵，压力太大，都不敢多休几个月带孩子，而且每月的花销都得省着来，太不值得了。
另外作者统计的支出也跟我观察的类似，比如她认为家庭日常支出较之六十年代其实是降低了，因为供房子作为主要的开支比重大大的增加。我也觉得我周围的人都算是很节省。她给出的最高统计是有人把收入的69%用在供房子上。
当然我暂时是不准备买房子的，所以会注意这些对我有利的数据。作者这本书写在2000-2001年，后来房价大涨，利率降低，对很多买了房子的人也是好消息。
Last edited by 洛洛 on 2005-08-23 10:48, edited 1 time in total.
混坛上另一颗新星
luoluo11.ycool.com
luoluo11.ycool.com
-
helenClaire
- Posts: 3159
- Joined: 2003-11-22 20:12
daycare算是让人省心的。以前一个妈妈告诉我：“School is a whole different animal." 等你家双双上学你就知道了。一般来说，私校除了学费，你要再准备相当于学费30%以上的杂费。如果你不能下午三点半在家等孩子下学，就有after school的费用，如果她下学参加个什么课外活动班。。。DeBeers wrote:不过话说回来，一次午餐同事说起附近一家私立高中，学费2万一年，其他人惊讶莫名，说太贵，我和另一个有双胞胎小宝宝的同事十分不解，因为daycare也差不多要这么多钱
私校也不好挑，相当多的是教会学校，另有一部份是女校(rather dead than co-ed?)，还有的学生成份是百分之一百的白人。
难怪我认得的一个教授他太太在家专门教两个女儿。
helenClaire wrote:daycare算是让人省心的。以前一个妈妈告诉我：“School is a whole different animal." 等你家双双上学你就知道了。一般来说，私校除了学费，你要再准备相当于学费30%以上的杂费。如果你不能下午三点半在家等孩子下学，就有after school的费用，如果她下学参加个什么课外活动班。。。DeBeers wrote:不过话说回来，一次午餐同事说起附近一家私立高中，学费2万一年，其他人惊讶莫名，说太贵，我和另一个有双胞胎小宝宝的同事十分不解，因为daycare也差不多要这么多钱
私校也不好挑，相当多的是教会学校，另有一部份是女校(rather dead than co-ed?)，还有的学生成份是百分之一百的白人。
现在偶是胡军的扇子。
