A generation with its hand out...

[Lean'n'mean]

I don't give to charities unless I count our daughter as one, she's currently taking around 70% of our income & I don't often have cash on me, even then it's just pennies but if I am confronted by a homeless person asking for a hand out I will toss 'em a coin or two.
I try not to judge them & I never think or say "They should just a get a job " as I have no idea of the life experiences or psychological trauma that led them to become as they are but I do know, all it takes is a divorce, death of a loved one or losing a job or house & any one of us could end up like that.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think a lot of people think they can look at such things in a "rational" sense -- "well, if such and such of an organization can't cut it in The Marketplace, well, sorry to see you go, but good bye." But when "good bye" actually happens -- as happened in our place from 2001 to 2004 -- these very same ones were complaining the loudest about "the blight of abandoned buildings on Main Street" and the "lack of entertainment options other than drinking and fighting for our community."

Most of our members/donors understand that. If they want a place in their community that can show the things they want to see and do they things they want to do, the sad fact of the matter is that "The Marketplace" is not going to provide that. "The Marketplace" is going to give them "Iron Man XXXVIII" in a concrete blockhouse with melted Goobers all over the seats and incompetent teenagers who don't know how to turn the lights off when the show begins, because the big chain companies that control "The Marketplace" in our line of business know they can get away with running an operation like that and do, because *they just don't care about their customers.* They come into a town like this counting on a monopoly, and get away with murder. And because they're a chain they have advantages in negotiating contracts and buying supplies that an indie operation simply cannot have in The Marketplace.

But if you want the Metropolitan Opera in a city of 7000 people, name live acts in a city of 7000 people, a facility that's available for every kind of community event, and a trained, experienced, and competent operations staff to run it-- "The Marketplace" has no interest in providing that for you and won't provide it for you. You're going to have to dig down and provide it yourself as a community resource.

 

[Fading Fast]

Well, there's also the argument that by being a nonprofit, institutions like Lizzie's allow for lower ticket prices opening the venue to many who otherwise cannot afford it.

I imagine the theatre has significant historical value, and that value is best maintained and preserved through a non-profit. A for-profit theatre has a duty (particularly if it has shareholders) to make profit. If the aging old decor isn't profitable, a for-profit publically held company is ethically required to change it to maximize profit, or has to argue why it is not acting in the best interests of its shareholders.

I agree with this.

 

[Fading Fast]

I don't give to charities unless I count our daughter as one, she's currently taking around 70% of our income & I don't often have cash on me, even then it's just pennies but if I am confronted by a homeless person asking for a hand out I will toss 'em a coin or two.
I try not to judge them & I never think or say "They should just a get a job " as I have no idea of the life experiences or psychological trauma that led them to become as they are but I do know, all it takes is a divorce, death of a loved one or losing a job or house & any one of us could end up like that.

I agree with this as well. (Because of the page break, I couldn't get my last two posts in one reply - sorry.)

 

[Fading Fast]

I think a lot of people think they can look at such things in a "rational" sense -- "well, if such and such of an organization can't cut it in The Marketplace, well, sorry to see you go, but good bye." But when "good bye" actually happens -- as happened in our place from 2001 to 2004 -- these very same ones were complaining the loudest about "the blight of abandoned buildings on Main Street" and the "lack of entertainment options other than drinking and fighting for our community."

Most of our members/donors understand that. If they want a place in their community that can show the things they want to see and do they things they want to do, the sad fact of the matter is that "The Marketplace" is not going to provide that. "The Marketplace" is going to give them "Iron Man XXXVIII" in a concrete blockhouse with melted Goobers all over the seats and incompetent teenagers who don't know how to turn the lights off when the show begins, because the big chain companies that control "The Marketplace" in our line of business know they can get away with running an operation like that and do, because *they just don't care about their customers.* They come into a town like this counting on a monopoly, and get away with murder. And because they're a chain they have advantages in negotiating contracts and buying supplies that an indie operation simply cannot have in The Marketplace.

But if you want the Metropolitan Opera in a city of 7000 people, name live acts in a city of 7000 people, a facility that's available for every kind of community event, and a trained, experienced, and competent operations staff to run it-- "The Marketplace" has no interest in providing that for you and won't provide it for you. You're going to have to dig down and provide it yourself as a community resource.

Yup - there are things that if a community wants, it will have to support through a non-profit model like yours. I've supported several over the years. But, as noted above, will every "man in the street" understand that value - see it as "rational -" in the same way they see a profitable business - nope. Doesn't make one better than the other in my mind, but the different constructs will have different perception issues.

Many see every business as greedy, but many aren't. Many see non-profits as "always with their hand out / not able to survive, so let them go" but that, too, isn't true. The narratives are rarely reflective of the many variables and nuances at work underneath. But calling a business or all businesses "greedy" or all non-profits a "waste" feels so good to so many that the narratives survive.

 

[Harp]

I think a lot of people think they can look at such things in a "rational" sense -- "well, if such and such of an organization can't cut it in The Marketplace, well, sorry to see you go...

But if you want the Metropolitan Opera in a city of 7000 people, name live acts in a city of 7000 people, a facility that's available for every kind of community event, and a trained, experienced, and competent operations staff to run it-- "The Marketplace" has no interest in providing that for you and won't provide it for you. You're going to have to dig down and provide it yourself as a community resource.

The other day I had a discussion with a lady who loves the Met and has performed at the University of Chicago student theatre-in all things-Machiavelli's
comedy The Mandrake Root. Larger urban areas can more readily supply such ancillary community services; whereas even here in Chicago, such are largely
skipped unless appendage made commercially. Derived benefit is all too often ignored.

 

[Fading Fast]

The other day I had a discussion with a lady who loves the Met and has performed at the University of Chicago student theatre-in all things-Machiavelli's
comedy The Mandrake Root. Larger urban areas can more readily supply such ancillary community services; whereas even here in Chicago, such are largely
skipped unless appendage made commercially. Derived benefit is all too often ignored.

Agreed, but even large markets can fail to support things. NYC is down to one classic music radio station which has been downgraded to a "class B" station (less powerful antenna) and survives on advertising and subscriptions (donations). I grew up in the '70s when there were several commercially supported stations in the New York area - it is absolutely amazing to me that only one small one is left and it needs donations to survive.

 

[sheeplady]

I'll add to this discussion to in terms of who is out on the street:

I know someone who's a veteran. He qualified for 100% disability because he was hit with an IED. He fought for 90% because he wanted to be able to work, but also because "full disability" was only going to provide $800 a month.

You get sent halfway around the world to fight for our country and you come back to $800 a month??? He needs significant accommodations to work, and had to change his field because his prior one couldn't make those accomodations. He told me that there is no way he could survive on $800 a month and live in an area where he could get ongoing treatment from a VA.

(ETA: he told me that if the IED had caused him to lose a limb or two, he could have gotten much more money, like $2,500 a month. But he also is spouseless and childless, which they also consider in the calculations.)

 

[scottyrocks]

The narratives are rarely reflective of the many variables and nuances at work underneath. But calling a business or all businesses "greedy" or all non-profits a "waste" feels so good to so many that the narratives survive.

Generalizing is easy. You don't have to think much.

 

[ChiTownScion]

I've been on the receiving end of charity. I, quite frankly, would not be alive if it wasn't for the strangers that helped me.

I have not forgotten what it's like to need the help of strangers, or the fact that I'm a stranger to someone else.

My being a Freemason does not allow me the option of turning my back on those in need. This really isn't at all about which organization of which I happen to be a member: it is a matter of what and who I am.

As far as "working for everything I ever had?" Yeah.. I have as well- as have millions of others who do not deserve a medal for it. Wasn't easy, and there were years of sacrifice and subsistence living. The Seventies and the start of the Eighties were, for me, times of a lot of fun but frugality. Parents didn't support my higher education one bit, because the price would have been pursuing it on their terms. And so, I worked myself through both my undergrad and law school. No scholarships, no handouts, but I had two factors in my favor. It took place at a time in history where, with a good deal of gratification deferment, one could still afford to work their way thorough in a manner that today's millennials can only dream about. And, in every one of those job offers along the way- many of which were for positions that some might deem as "beneath" me because of education, skills, etc.- there was someone who was willing to give me a chance to prove myself.

And for those factors, I deem myself, as I have said, among the Damned Fortunate.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Agreed, but even large markets can fail to support things. NYC is down to one classic music radio station which has been downgraded to a "class B" station (less powerful antenna) and survives on advertising and subscriptions (donations). I grew up in the '70s when there were several commercially supported stations in the New York area - it is absolutely amazing to me that only one small one is left and it needs donations to survive.

New York used to have four big network radio stations and a legion of independent stations, many of them working on shared-time arrangements, but since the consolidation of radio ownership of the last thirty years or so, there's just no room for the little guys anymore. I dearly miss the old WNEW 1130, the best independent radio station in America, and the quality music it played, and its 50,000 watt blowtorch signal up the eastern seaboard. I don't know why "Bloomberg Business Radio" feels like it needs that signal, since I can find "Bloomberg Business Radio" about fifty different spots on the dial.

 

[ChiTownScion]

As far as empathy goes, I think the biggest problem in the world today is that there's too little of it. Who are any of us to assume that we won't ever wind up pusing a rusty grocery carriage full of bottles down the street someday? There were an awful lot of self-satisified upstanding people in 1929 who were living under a tarp in a hole in the ground in 1932, and who's arrogant enough to say that won't ever happen again? Who of us can say with full confidence that there isn't some off-center bit of brain chemistry in our own heads that might misfire some night and leave us delusional and incapable of holding a job? All of us are just one bad twist of fate away from potential homelessness.

Amen to that, Miss Lizzie. I've seen it happen. Not really to the smug and self- satisfied, but certainly to the bright, the hard working, the educated, the professionally respected, the honest, and to those who one would never guess would be singled out for misfortune. And it isn't a pretty sight.


What galls (and to a small part, amuses) me are those who crow the loudest about the virtues of self reliance, free enterprise, and such whose own life experiences are so far removed from said same. Mercenary religionists - who really are nothing more than glorified panhandlers- are at the top of that list. And military careerists who, along with their military pension checks, are cashing a monthly check for a post- service civilian government career and have never held a job in the private sector, run a close second. I don't begrudge them a penny, mind you... but I sure as hell will never suffer a lecture on the virtues of laizzez-faire capitalism from the likes of them without shoving back, with both hands.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Whenever you hear a "Christian" preaching about bootstraps, it's a pretty good guess he's trying to figure out how to pull himself up by yours.

 

[ChiTownScion]

Whenever you hear a "Christian" preaching about bootstraps, it's a pretty good guess he's trying to figure out how to pull himself up by yours.

"Whenever you hear a man singing too loud on Saturday night and praying too loud on Sunday morning, go home and lock your smokehouse!"

Harry S. Truman

 

[tonyb]

My wife is a much softer touch than I am. Because I assemble the documentation to forward to our accountant, I know better than she does just how generous she is. I have learned not to be critical of that.

Last night I found myself at an import store where I happened upon a faux fur pillow, which reminded me that such a thing was on the wish list of a 16-year-old girl in foster care whose tag on the giving tree in the lobby of my wife's downtown office was the one the lovely missus selected. So I bought the pillow. Now we gotta find some perfume for the young woman (also on her list) and, knowing my wife, a couple-three other things she'll decide the kid might like.

A young man in a booth adjacent to mine at a fast food place sheepishly asked if I might buy him a hamburger. I've known enough junkies to recognize this fellow as likely being one. I initially turned down his request. But as I got up to leave I stopped by the counter and bought him two burgers off the "value menu," which is what I ordered off of for myself. I dropped the burgers in front of him. He put his hands together and nodded his head.

One of my favorite people, a fellow I've known for nearly 40 years, succumbed to lung cancer this past January. In his paid notice in the Seattle Times he cited Matthew 25:40, which he interpreted as encouraging us to give generously to the beggars Jesus sends us.

I'm nowhere near so religious as my departed friend (although we were both raised Catholic), and I have firsthand knowledge of his numerous sins (the stories I could tell), but I always knew him to be one to count his own blessings and not mistake them for personal achievements. It's among the things I loved about him. Humility such as his is not found just anywhere. Indeed, it seems we often reward the direct opposite. No need to name names.

 

[Fading Fast]

IMHO, it's all a balance and I don't claim to know the proper weights. But I don't think abject humility or arrant pride is the answer. Many people do work hard, over come obstacles - stick with it / nose to the grindstone - and succeed and it doesn't seem wrong to me that they should take some measured pride in that. But, some luck and help from others most probably played a hand and that should be remember and result in some humility.

Maybe Mother Teresa was the greatest person ever, but not much in the world would happen if we were all Mother Teresas as it's hard to give charity / to help others / to feed the hungry / clothes and shelter the needy / treat the sick if there are no farmers, no workers, no managers, no doctors, no food processors, no pharmacy companies, no (you get it). Somebody has to build, work, create, sustain for there to be charity to give.

I try hard not to judge - especially if I don't truly know the facts, circumstances and history - I work hard, believe my first obligation is to not be a burden to others (I help society by not draining its resources), support my family, support charitable causes and get up and do it again the next day. The right balance - I don't know what that is, I set it for myself, but leave others to do so for themselves.

I'm an Aristotelian Balance guy - Scrooge McDuck is wrong / few can be Mother Teresa - just try to strike a reasonable balance, try not to judge what you don't know and try to do a bit better each day (or no worse).

 

[tonyb]

If hard work alone made a person rich, migrant farm workers would get from field to field in Ferraris.

 

[LizzieMaine]

A lot of the American attitude about wealth is a product of 17th century Calvinism. The Puritans taught and believed that material success was a sign of God's blessing, and that if an individual failed to prosper he was clearly not predestined to receive God's favor, and therefore it was right and proper for that individual to suffer. That ethos left a long dark stain across the American character, where you'll find people still today who argue that it's God's will for some to be rich and some to be poor, and who are we to tamper with the sacred order of things.

I lost any special faith I might have once had in the "American Work Ethic" when I watched my grandfather work himself to death and die broke -- not because of anything he did or didn't do, but because his destiny was shaped by forces beyond his control. A minor decision made in a corporate office in White Plains, NY in 1978 ended up costing him everything he'd worked to achieve, and ultimately, his life. That doesn't mean I don't believe in working hard -- I've done so since I was thirteen years old -- but I don't believe there's anything particularly noble or sacred about it anymore. I do it because, frankly, the alternative is to starve to death in the cold.

 

[tonyb]

Barbara Ehrenreich is among the more prominent of those who propose that low-income workers are the true wealth creators in this economy. It's their meager compensation that keeps prices low for higher-income consumers of the goods they produce and the services they provide.

 

[Fading Fast]

Barbara Ehrenreich is among the more prominent of those who propose that low-income workers are the true wealth creators in this economy. It's their meager compensation that keeps prices low for higher-income consumers of the goods they produce and the services they provide.

I have read her work but think it argues a perspective that doesn't capture, IMHO, the true source of the creative genius behind the wealth.

Looked at from one perspective, Henry Ford didn't do much - it was all those assembly line workers who did the "real" work. And at a certain level that's true - they did the manual work that made the cars. But the genius was, first, all the groundbreaking work Ford did on designing the car itself and then the genius of applying the aborning assembly line concept to auto manufacturing and, of course, organizing it all into a successful company.

Ford was the wealth creator. It was his drive, his creativity, his work, his insight that revolutionized the manufacturing of cars that drove down their price to a level that allowed them to become a mass market product which - by making transportation cheaper and more efficient - greatly increased the wealth of the country.

Watson and Crick had the intellectual insight into genetic code that, eventually, led to incredible advances in medicines - which has made society healthier and wealthier - whose later-stage products (the drugs we buy) are made by millions of workers. IMHO, the wealth creators were Watson and Crick who advanced the intellectual capital of the country forward. The workers on the pharmaceutical assembly line - who work hard and should be proud of their work - wouldn't have jobs if Watson and Crick hadn't had the spark of genius, the creative passion and effort to move the intellectual ball forward.

Creating, organizing, improving, advancing - the people who invent new items, discover new things, the managers who improve processes or organize tens or hundreds of thousands of people more efficiently - are the creative geniuses that increase wealth, raise living standards, improve health - they are the geniuses that, basically, make a country healthier and wealthier.

Yes, somebody has to do all the physical and lower-level intellectual work to execute on those ideas - and that work is important, hard, impressive and irreplaceable - and as one of those people and not a creative genius, I personally have great respect for all those people as I'm one of them - but IMHO we aren't the prime mover of the economy.

If FDR was a genius, his genius was in part creating a plan to put millions of people back to work in all those gov't programs. The people who got those jobs had been on unemployment lines until someone - a creative genius - created a plan, process and construct to put them to work. Their muscle was always willing, but it lay fallow until one or a few people built the government programs that put them back to work.

Before I am excommunicated from FL, let me at least be clear that I am not arguing what someone should be paid, whether the system we have today is fair or equitable or, in truth, any of the current political battles. My argument is, IMHO, a philosophical one - who creates the wealth of a nation. My view is that it is the few that have invented / created / discovered / advanced new ideas, products, process, etc. that have improved our wealth and health - even if it required an army of workers to accomplish the end result - that are the movers of our economy.

I am not one of those people. I am a worker bee; I know that every job I've ever had is owed to a super-creative genius / organizer (albeit at a much lower level than a Ford or Watson or Crick). Without armies of people like me, nothing these super geniuses come up with will get done, but the advances in quality of life are owed to the super geniuses.

There are many exceptions to the above ten or so paragraphs that greatly oversimplifies a complicated economic and social system. Books by people far smarter than I have been written arguing for and against it. The above doesn't address all the points and counterpoints; it lays out a high-level, overly brief view that I have and that I'm 100% fine with others not sharing.

A lot of the American attitude about wealth is a product of 17th century Calvinism. The Puritans taught and believed that material success was a sign of God's blessing, and that if an individual failed to prosper he was clearly not predestined to receive God's favor, and therefore it was right and proper for that individual to suffer. That ethos left a long dark stain across the American character, where you'll find people still today who argue that it's God's will for some to be rich and some to be poor, and who are we to tamper with the sacred order of things.

I lost any special faith I might have once had in the "American Work Ethic" when I watched my grandfather work himself to death and die broke -- not because of anything he did or didn't do, but because his destiny was shaped by forces beyond his control. A minor decision made in a corporate office in White Plains, NY in 1978 ended up costing him everything he'd worked to achieve, and ultimately, his life. That doesn't mean I don't believe in working hard -- I've done so since I was thirteen years old -- but I don't believe there's anything particularly noble or sacred about it anymore. I do it because, frankly, the alternative is to starve to death in the cold.

I have a lot of respect for a work ethic - American or anyone's - but it is not, IMHO, a talisman against a bad outcome.

I believe success is made up of a combination of hard work, applied intelligence and luck (or impaired by bad luck). An outsized amount of any can overcome a lot - I've seen smart people overcome setbacks with incredible intelligence and others with an insane amount of hard work, but I've also seen bad luck swamp very smart and very hard working people.

At a population level - the harder workers, the smart ones who can apply their intelligence tend, overall to do better, but good or bad luck can greatly skew many people's personal experiences. I have no doubt that Lizzie's grandfather worked hard and smart, but was undone by bad luck (a decision outside of his control and not directed personally at him). Conversely, there are secretaries who worked for Microsoft in the early days who are millionaires now because of a lucky job choice.

What works at a population level - hard work, applied smarts, luck - says nothing about what any individual's experience within that population will be. People who never smoke die of lung cancer and lifelong smokers live to 100. The population statistics will prove that smoking is dangerous to your health, but they don't tell us what any individual's experience who smokes or doesn't will absolutely be.

It's frustrating and maddening that one can do all the right things - work hard, work smart, live healthy, be kind - and have bad luck ruin their life.