Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.
Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.
Readers Write: 'Strapped' for Adulthood
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
Hedge Fund Would Rather Shut Down a Plant Than Pay Its Workers a Fair Wage
Art Levine
DrugReporter:
The Supreme Court Resists Drug War Hysteria
Krystal Quinlan
Environment:
Summer Downsizing: 31 Ways to Jumpstart Your Local Economy
Sarah van Gelder
Health and Wellness:
10 Dangerous Household Products You Should Never Use Again
Immigration:
Huron, California May not Exist in a Year
Viji Sundaram
Media and Technology:
Michael Jackson's Death Was Tragic, But He Was Little More Than an Icon of Mediocrity
Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez
Movie Mix:
Up: This Time, Pixar Has Gone Too Far
Eileen Jones
Politics:
Hunter Thompson Knew It Well: Robert McNamara's Vision for America Was Imperial and Elitist
Joe Costello
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
My First Abortion Party
Byard Duncan
Rights and Liberties:
Does a Senior Obama Official Have Unseemly Ties to Notorious Human Rights Abuser Chevron?
Jeremy Scahill
Sex and Relationships:
How to Make Marriage More Than an Arrangement of Love-less, Sexless, Domestic Drudgery
Vanessa Richmond
Take Action:
Ending Indefinite Detention is AlterNet's Top Take Action Campaign of the Week
Byard Duncan
Water:
Energy Industry Threatens Water Quality, Sways Congress With Misleading Data
Abrahm Lustgarten
World:
What Kind of "Hope" Is Obama Offering to Latin American Countries Still Traumatized by U.S. Empire?
Roberto Lovato
Jodie Janella Horn's recent review of Tamara Draut's book "Strapped: Why America's 20- and 30-Somethings Can't Get Ahead," sparked one of the most in-depth dialogues the AlterNet community has ever seen. With some 330 comments, it was evident Draut had touched on an issue that resonated with many of AlterNet's readers.
One notable theme was that Draut's book struck a nerve with readers of all ages -- not just those in their 20s and 30s. Lizmv started off the conversation by noting that, "As a 51-year-old single mom whose kids are now finally out of the house, I am still struggling to pay off the debt incurred by dentist bills and helping the kids get through college as best I could. I have just come to the conclusion that I will NEVER own a home, so I will never have that security. I expect to work until the day I die."
Another embittered reader, monkeywrench, was "retired prematurely" explored the difficulty of making ends meet when you are "overqualified," which is a euphemism for "too old, with looming health and pension issues." And, just try to enter another field at a low level as a middle-aged newbie -- employers think of you as retarded; otherwise, why would you be shooting so low?
McJulie wondered, "What in hell is America going to do with 50 million pissed-off ex-employees and starving 'retirees'?" Suggesting that readers unite in a "revolution with the oldest revolutionaries in history."
The younder generation volunteered many personal accounts that bolstered Draut's argument. hbw noted that even modest lifestyles can leave Americans in debt: "We are not taking expensive vacations. No big-screen TV, no boat, no drug habits. Well, some prescription stuff, with a modest co-pay. We have a 3-bedroom home in an older neighborhood. We have one child, with all his incidental school expenses. I take Metro to work, carrying a cheap sack lunch in my backpack. In sum, we are not extravagant, but we are in hock up to our collective eyeballs."
AndyF thought there might be a little too much whining going on. "Oh, come on," he writes. "Please start to look closely at your expenses and separate needs from wants, and start to cut back on the wants. You've chosen to live in an expensive urban area and complain about it. My wife and I made the decision to live a life which we enjoy and doesn't require a lot of income. This meant leaving expensive urban areas behind and bringing up our children in a rural area."
Where one chooses to live, and the subsequent costs of transportation, were both factors brought up time and again throughout the discussion.
While AndyF encouraged moving to a rural area in order to cut expenses, other readers found this to be an unrealistic option. geming noted that "Some of us do social justice work that requires that we live in the urban areas we serve. It really isn't a choice for me to move out and live in a nice place and then commute back. And frankly, as a person of color with a culture different than average rural or suburban folks, I really don't consider it a choice to move where nobody looks like me."
jasonix adds that, while the cost of living is lower, a well-paying job may be hard to come by: "I investigated Erie, Pa., and western/central N.Y., where house prices are all below $50,000. If I could make $50,000 there, I'd be in swell shape. But try taking a look in the help wanteds -- the only jobs are for Wal-mart (minimum wage) and farm workers ($7.50)."
Some readers confessed that they had been considering moving to Canada, where they felt their tax money would more directly benefit them. ssegallmd wrote: "Sure, we Americans pay taxes in the same ballpark as citizens of traditional socialist governments. That's because we live in a welfare state. It's just that that it's not the general welfare or the welfare of its needy that America's government is interested in, but rather, the welfare of the greedy (i.e., very wealthy)." okcamp said simply, "The way I see it, my grandparents left their motherlands to come here for a better life, and I likely will do the same."
Onnesha Roychoudhuri is an editorial fellow at AlterNet.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »