Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

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.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Can Marriage Fix Poverty?

By Barbara Ehrenreich, AlterNet. Posted June 6, 2006.


There are quite a few surprising -- and surprisingly viable -- alternatives to Bush's marriage-minded anti-poverty program.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Barbara Ehrenreich

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

I was on panel discussion on poverty a few weeks ago, when NY Times reporter Jason de Parle asked me, in what he said was a spirit of devil’s advocacy, why I slighted marriage as a solution to poverty. Actually, I’d barely begun to slight it—I’d just mentioned that it is the Bush administration’s favored anti-poverty strategy, when the audience, and especially the women in it, broke out into laughter.

De Parle was right to say that married couples do much better financially than single mothers, if only because the single moms lack a male breadwinner. But every time I think of marriage as an anti-poverty program, my mind flips back to a woman I met while researching Nickel and Dimed. She was a deeply religious African American woman, an evangelical Christian, and she broke into tears as she told me that her husband beat her when he got drunk, which was as often as he could find the time for it. (Just to confound any residual racial stereotypes you may have, the husband, whom I met, was white.)

She wanted to leave him, and had tried it once, but the hard fact was that she and the two children could not survive on her $10 an hour clerical job. He was no winner, but his $11 an hour contribution to the household made him, tragically, a keeper. The Bush administration would no doubt approve, because that’s our official policy: Stand by your man.

But why a man? Another thing that struck me in my Nickel and Dimed research was how often low-wage people teamed up in roommate situations, just to make rent. A single Florida waitress briefly shared a room with a male friend. Two young housecleaners in Maine, one the single mother of a toddler, rented an apartment together. These were not the most stable arrangements: The waitress moved out when her friend began to hit on her; the childless roommate in Maine got tired of the toddler. But while they lasted, these rent-sharing relationships helped pay the bills.

If the point is simply to increase the number of wage earners per rent bill, then marriage is hardly the only solution. There’s grandma, for example. According to the NY Times, one of the fastest growing types of households in American is the multigenerational household—grandparents, parents, and children. Grandma may have thought she was going to spend her golden years dancing in her living room to old Doors albums, but her kids and their kids need a place to stay, plus free babysitting thrown in. Even some of the more affluent are taking the multigen route, opting for houses with “bedroom suites” with private entrances – for the college grad child who has embarked on his or her life as a waitperson.

And let’s face it, what gives immigrant workers a leg up is their ability to tolerate residential crowding. Anyone who thinks that there are jobs that native-born people won’t put up with has probably never seen a native-born American sweat outside of a gym. We native-borns will do anything – clean houses, dig ditches, pluck poultry. We just hesitate to share a bedroom with three or four unrelated folks.

But I’ve met immigrant workers who lived six to a two-bedroom apartment, or who had nothing to go “home” to but a cot in a dorm. Maybe they’re a little less fussy about privacy; most likely, they fervently believe that their situation is temporary.

If the current gross mis-match between wages and rents continues, we’re going to something a little more robust than Bush’s “marriage promotion” policy. I have an idea, and it’s called a commune: Get together with some friends, divide the chores, make up some rules about noise and guests, and rent a place that none of you could afford on your own. My husband and I did it as young parents in the 70s, and, yes, there were occasional tensions, but we got space for our children and ended up with friendships that have lasted ever since.

Somehow, though, I don’t think the Bush administration will go for my plan.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of thirteen books. This piece first appeared on Barbara's Blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
amen sister...
Posted by: zombi on Jun 6, 2006 3:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
austin. live music capitol of the world. enviro-rapists worse nightmare. a city whose motto is "Keep Austin Wierd". a moderately sized, metropolitan area that looks like a huge park & has one of the lowest crime rates in the US; full of privately owned businesses. a great place to live & oh, so expensive. not only that, but in a town full of college grads who just didn't want to leave, even minimum wage jobs are hard to come by. yet for nearly 2 years i managed to live in the suburbs of austin, in a two story brick house w/ a gigantic fireplace & skylights, while working at borders books for $7.25 an hour. how did i do that? by living w/ a wildly fluctuating, small army of people. not only did i get to stay in a cool place but i met some great people who are now some of my best friends.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: amen sister... Posted by: aussidawg
RE: nviro-Fascists make rent expensive
Posted by: Wish on Jun 7, 2006 12:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hahaha, you are just so pathetic, it makes me laugh. If it just wouldn't be so sad. You don't happen to have any ostrich in the family? Where you inherited your hide-my-head-in-the-sand-and-let's-deny-reality quality from?
So typical. Instead of looking for the real problems and solutions, it's of course the 'hippies' fault. Never mind grosly low minimum wages for instance. Never mind all the huge giveaways to the rich. Never mind the leeching of humanity and society by militarism (have you ever just checked how much money goes to that bottomlless pit?). Never mind...anything "righties" do.
Nope, it's the 'hippies'.
Of course. And we knew it all along.
(Do they still not cut their hair also?!)

I don't know whether I feel compassion for your vile ignorance, or just pity you. It must be terrible to live with so much hatred.
Nah, I think it's pity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: nviro-Fascists make rent expensive
Posted by: fiskhus on Jun 7, 2006 12:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, that's just stupid - and facile.

The biggest reason for the unsustainable run-up in housing costs - including rent - is the condominiumization of America. And, naturally, the key goal of this push to an "Ownership" society is the desire of the wealthy (read = GOP) to avoid market risk.

Of course, artificially avoiding market risk is a negation and a nullification of anything good about free market capitalism - but that's the GOP policy goal in a nutshell.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: nviro-Fascists make rent expensive
Posted by: Elliander on Jun 7, 2006 1:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While it may be true that limiting new homes to be built may make it more difficult to find a place locally, so in turn increase rates of rent through inflation it is not true that this process affects everywhere, since the housing market tends to change based on where you live. Another reason costs are higher in such conditions is because, lets face it, Forests are appealing. Crowded streets are not. It is why Suburbs become cities.

However, the main reason for increased costs happens to be the real estate market itself. I know, because I work in real estate, and it is a very simple process. First, I buy a home usually without putting a dollar down. I then spend a few thousand dollars to improve it's condition, thus increasing housing value, and then I will sell it making sometimes 200% profits. This is a good practice, because it is satisfying to see run down areas look nice again, and it also gives work to local construction companies, but because of how many people work in this field, and how easy it is to do, this alone is the single greatest drive for an increased cost of living.

The only relation your statement has to this matter, is that when there is a great deal of natural Beauty to accent from I can get substantially more for the house if it is fixed up properly, which in turn substantially affects those families who move in.

Then there is the Job Market. People cannot live without Work. (usually.) and so need decent high paying Jobs to manage this. However, many Jobs are exported overseas. Not only because it is cheaper, but because there is an actual tax benefit to having a mailbox overseas. The current rate of Job increase is impressive, but many more Jobs are being lost than they are gained.

Oh, I know they tell you they are increasing Jobs. But the truth is, that is a form of math used in every buisness. When they say, for example, one movie made 10 million at the box office, what they don't say is how much it cost to make and promote. By playing with the math, people can make a situation look better than it is without technically lying.

I believe that there is never one cause behind a given social political issue, and that the whole must be considered.

All that aside, I should probably point out that the previous article these are commenting is not talking about the actual Market condition of homes, but rather what people can do to survive in higher cost situations through various social methods.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: nviro-Fascists make rent expensive
Posted by: owleyes on Jun 8, 2006 1:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Huh? Which hippies are in office?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: nviro-Fascists make rent expensive
Posted by: Callibrarian on Jun 14, 2006 2:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Real estate prices has nothing to do with hippies and everything to do with low interest rates which allowed people to buy more house than they would normally be able to afford, fear after 9/11 that made them cling to hearth, and fear of the stock market after the dot com bust.
As for environmentalists, I love them. I'm glad there are people fighting for clean water, against over fishing (90% of oxygen comes from our oceans), against sprawl (ruins the migratory patterns on animals vital to the food chain), for trees and organic foods. I want people who will certify my food organic, especially since government guidelines allow companies to add plaster of paris to our food without requiring it be listed on the label. I want people who will speak out about the fact that we more than doubled our population since 1950 and point out that we shouldn't breed like we've just survived the great flood.
And about the homeless---there are actually plenty of places to live, it's just that addictions stop some from getting stable homes, some people don't have the money to live in them, or they face other problems. There are ten houses on my street alone sitting empty because the owners want $350,000 for homes they bought 6 years ago for $125,000.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: nviro-Fascists make rent expensive
Posted by: kelly.nickell on Jun 14, 2006 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spanky - find a clue, you could use one.

Stupid people keep people poor and homeless - hippies may be our future, and thank Bob Marley they ignore ignorance like yours.

Enjoy blaming the world around you for your own stupidity while you can, the environment will only last long enough to choke your dumb ass down.

Have a smoggy day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Enviro-Fascists make rent expensive
Posted by: dbenson on Jun 14, 2006 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Someone posted yesterday that this poster sounded like Cartman from South Park.

He does! He does!

Now I can't help but read his posts spoken in Cartman's voice--just too funny!
(Stupid hippies! heheheheh!)
Come on, everyone, respect his au-thor-i-tay (Not!)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ACTUALLY
Posted by: repo on Jun 14, 2006 6:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There have been several successful experiments in the Dallas, TX area with eco-friendly, affordable homes. Two I can think of from the top of my head are the homes on Parker Road and Ave. P in Plano, and the Esperanza del Sol homes at Prairie and Ross Avenue in Dallas. Not only are they created to assist low to moderate income people achieve homeownership through affordable prices ($80,000 to $100,000 and also programs to get low interest loans), they are also environmentally friendly, utilizing geothermal energy, specially insulated roofs and lower the average cost of heating and cooling to as little as $300 per year. I think things like this are the way of the future.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Liars claim: enviro-Fascists make rent expensive
Posted by: hayduke1 on Jun 14, 2006 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yeah right.
we should give up all to the corporate hierarchy that now plagues our world...but hey, at least we'd all have a nice company owned jail cell, errh, dorm room where we could spend our free hour each day reading about the great things Big Brother and his corporate siblings have done for us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Investors help make rent expensive
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Jun 14, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever real estate becomes one of the safer or more attractive investment opportunities, investors buy real estate. Some become landlords, some tear down and re-build. All hope to eventually sell at a profit, and realtors want a cut, too. Figure in a host of other costs (many required by state law, no doubt at the behest of business interests), and it's apparent that each time a property changes hands, the price has to go up significantly just to break even.

I bought exactly one house and it will be paid-for a year before I am eligible to retire. I suspect, though, that a lot of housing passes through numerous hands for reasons other than use as a full-time residence. It's a perfectly legitimate investment, but an active real estate market leads to higher housing costs.

On a broader scale, a more investment-based economy leads to increased costs for whatever it is that becomes a popular investment. As we export manufacturing and production jobs, governments take on an increasing burden in patronage employment, as they are increasingly seen as one of only few remaining hourly wage opportunities with good pay and benefits.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Here's why you're wrong
Posted by: McJulie on Jun 14, 2006 9:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Spanky is being a troll, but people who sound more reasonable than that make similar claims.

In my little town (Bellingham, WA) there is a particular lobbying group of builders that is always trying to claim that laws restricting development (especially development on the hills around the lake that provides water for our community) drive up housing prices. They never have any compelling evidence for this -- they are just banking on the fact that it seems "logical" for lack of supply to drive up prices.

But their arguments are bogus for several reasons. First of all, they are trying to relax regulations that prevent them from building million-dollar palaces out in semi-rural areas -- not exactly low-income housing. And, historically, the presence of million-dollar palaces tends to drive other housing prices up, not down.

Second, if you look at housing prices around the country, the places with the MOST development are the places with the highest costs. Price is driven by desirability far more than by availability. It is simply not possible to build enough housing in a hot area so that housing becomes cheap simply through availability.

Look to Manhattan for an example. They could put high rises on every square inch of Central Park, and the only thing that would bring down the rents is, possibly, that without Central Park Manhattan would be a less desirable place to live.

There is plenty of cheap housing in this country. It is in small, dying towns in the midwest, where there's no jobs and not much in the way of culture or natural beauty either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: nviro-Fascists make rent expensive
Posted by: wavesrgreat on Jun 14, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Go back over to Rush.com and post your distorted "facts" to the minions of ignorant angry sheep there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: nviro-Fascists make rent expensive
Posted by: RosieRivetor on Jun 14, 2006 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know you, you're one of those blue collars that drives a beat up truck with a W sticker in the window. You vote for a club that you will never join. Your minimum or close to minimum wage job frustrates you. You most likely can not afford to even rent an apartment on your own so the fact that housing is so out of your league makes you lash out.

Economics are simple, developers want to make money. Yes there are environmentalists who don't want to see every inch of the planet covered in concrete but the bottom line is that developers are NOT in the business of building housing just so you can have an inexpensive place to live. They do it make money and quite frankly, right now with building materials so expensive due to gas prices and shortages (as related to Katrina and other Hurricains from last year), developers will not even break ground unless they know they can move the units. Truth be told, in a market like LA, if they can't get at least $450,000 a unit, it's not even worth doing.

Now, with the job market, wages and stock market where they are now, how many people that are not already homeowners do you think can afford that mortgage? Add taxes and insurance and you're talking over $3,500 a month. Big number.

Spanky69, you may want to understand an issue a little more thoroughly before you make such blanket and ignorant statements. Oh, and most (not all, there are clearly some people that are working homeless due to location and costs) Homeless are sustance addicted and program resistent. They choose to be homeless. It is not the free market that keeps them like that, it is their own choices or vices. Reagan started the homeless by closing all those mental hospitals in the 80's. With no hospitals and more people getting ill, the program will continue to spiral out of control. So saying that environmental concerns are a contributing factor to this problem is just plain stupid. Check the want ads of any city and there are places for rent. It's not like the inn is full.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: nviro-Fascists make rent expensive
Posted by: morticia on Jun 14, 2006 2:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks, you should know by now that Spanky loves to bait and infuriate. It entertains him. He loves to watch the splutteringly indignant comments line up under one of his outrageous, purposely provocative posts. He knows better than what he puts up there. Y'all are accommodating him by taking him seriously!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bushies are glued
Posted by: rsaxto on Jun 7, 2006 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bushies are glued to a single model of a household which works fine for a lot of people but doesn't work out for a lot of other people. They are like the old Fords who made just one model of car: they ignore other worthwhile models. Most people are good at learning how to get along with other people and can adapt to their personal needs. The Bushies are stuck on ancient ways of how people should live with one another and how they should kill one another in wars and such. The Bushies just suck in every which way it is possible to suck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Industry
Posted by: Riverside on Jun 7, 2006 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, I can see an entirely new housing opportunity. Houses built for multiple occupancy clustered around or near convenineces such as public transportation, groceries, entertainment, etc.

NO, I am not talking about apartment buildings (I live in one of those). This would be true communal living, but in a house designed just for that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: New Industry Posted by: balance
mlb
Posted by: mlblock on Jun 7, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a big believer in communal living, and I've long thought that it would take serious adversity/removal of what Cheney called our "non-negotiable way of life" to push people back into the kind of tribal, day-to-day cooperative relationships for which we are essentially designed. We lived in co-housing for several months, and believe me, there are issues and problems and sometimes you wish these people would get out of your frickin' space, but overall our kids were happier, we all felt safer, and we felt bathed in community. Wonderful - and I hope more people start working to create this. Interested? Visit www.ic.org to see where this is being done, and how.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marriage
Posted by: BlueTigress on Jun 7, 2006 8:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know if the Bushites just have a hopelessly romantic view of marriage or what, but their plan just will not work.

Slipping on the wedding ring does not make one suddenly a paragon of moral virtue. Plus, in this uncertain economy, even if you have two people working and getting by, if one is laid off, what is the other supposed to do? Divorce them and marry someone else who has the equivalent paycheck "for the children"? I know that some feminists have charged that marriage is equivalent to prostitution, but come on!

Howsabout we work on getting a solid economy going where one paycheck CAN support a family!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Marriage Posted by: Elliander
» RE: Marriage Posted by: fork
» RE: Marriage Posted by: jmoore
» RE: Marriage Posted by: fork
» RE: Marriage Posted by: kcampbell
» RE: Marriage Posted by: BJT
» RE: Marriage Posted by: blackpyecat
WHAT DOES IT REALLY MEAN?
Posted by: fiskhus on Jun 7, 2006 12:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever Our Beloved Leader opens his dubious mouth, we must read between his lines.

Just as "Family Values" means nepotism, racism and free generational transfers of wealth;

Just as "No Child Left Behind" means the creation of a new underclass of dropouts;

So, we must determine what is really meant when the Great One intones about "anti-poverty struggles". The chances are good that this construct hides another piece of the GOP policy to push all market risk onto the backs of the poor and to insulate the wealthy from ever experiencing it again.

Naturally, insulating the investing class from market risk is a nullification of everything good about free market capitalism - but it is GOP policy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Communal
Posted by: Elliander on Jun 7, 2006 1:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I fully agree with what you said there. I intend to someday live in a commune.

Personally, I feel very disconnected in today's world. Everyone in it for themselves. Survival of the fittest, of the strongest. The reason Single-Women, for example, are left to struggle is because society sees it as their struggle for survival.

Some cultures would bond together, helping each other find work. Apply that to, say, unemployment check, and think about how many Jobs the Government would actually have for them. Help them find something to do locally, and pay them. Find something suited to their needs. A Government created Job system to solve the unemployment problem would certainly solve many problems.

Some cultures, perhaps all long gone, had a system of, "The children of the one is the children of the whole." meaning that if a parent has a child, even though she has primary access to the child, it is the responsibility of every member of their society to ensure that this child is treated right and is given everything it needs to become a productive member of society.

Just think of what this kind of communal Parenting could do for society? Not just by helping the mother and the children, but it also would give individuals experiance in parenting before even having one making it so much easier to avoid mistakes.

So much could be learned from the communal template.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Communal Posted by: BJT
that's a good idea
Posted by: owleyes on Jun 8, 2006 1:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want a child but can't afford one. Maybe if my husband and I bought a house with some like-minded people, we could make it happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: that's a good idea Posted by: Samantha Vimes
Of course they laughed.
Posted by: tface1000 on Jun 11, 2006 11:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, I’d barely begun to slight it—I’d just mentioned that it is the Bush administration’s favored anti-poverty strategy, when the audience, and especially the women in it, broke out into laughter.

The anti-poverty marriage "strategy" is pathetically ridiculous. former-governor Pete Wilson tried the same "strategy" in California about 15 years ago. It's a prime example of how politicians can get so out of touch with reality, that they can completely and utterly miss the point. When PW spouted this garbage as a solution to the problem of mom's on welfare, I could do nothing but laugh. See, at the time I had recently fled from my abusive husband with nothing but $20.00 and a two year old. I ended up on welfare for about two years while I got back on my feet.

When good ol' Pete said the solution to my problem was to get married, I just laughed and laughed, and said, that's what got me into this mess in the first place. You can't fool me into thinking marriage will solve my economic problems, and I'm sure I'm not the only women in the world that's figured that out.

What a silly, pandering-to-the-right idea it is, to suggest marriage is the solution to poverty. If I'd been in the crowd I'd have laughed too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Of course they laughed. Posted by: Callibrarian
That's what I want to do.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes on Jun 14, 2006 3:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buy some land, put up a kit home, let some friends come, build another kit home on the property... with lots of people contributing in the ways that work best for them, we could afford to live better than we could independently, plus the bonus of having a social community we really like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Some comments
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Jun 14, 2006 6:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"she broke into tears as she told me that her husband beat her when he got drunk, which was as often as he could find the time for it"

So what is the point here? Are you asserting that America is a nation of wife-beaters and that divorce is the only escape? That most or even a majority of divorces happen because the husband wants to smack the wife around? I don't believe this is the case.

"But why a man?"

Indeed, and I've wondered why single mothers on welfare don't share accomodations more often. I believe the answer can be found in a Chinese symbol for trouble: two women under one roof. In large part, women can't stand living together.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» its just anecdote Posted by: repo
» RE: Some comments Posted by: tface1000
» RE: Some comments Posted by: Lizmv
» RE: Some comments Posted by: balance
» RE: Some comments Posted by: pomes
» RE: Some comments Posted by: drmflorida
Kali
Posted by: Kali on Jun 14, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out www.co-abode.com.

Wonderful idea!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wonder why we allow and accept the disparities we do.
Posted by: Betsy L. Angert on Jun 14, 2006 10:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Barbara Ehrenreich . . .

I was with you until the last paragraph. Why must we live in communes or be married? Why must we tolerate living in close quarters with many?

I wonder why we allow and accept the disparities we do. Rents and the price of homes are extremely high! Wages for the majority are awfully low. The professionals live in one world the poor in another. Yet, they are all here, in America physically together. Their lives and philosophies are not united. For me, that is the problem!

What seems eons ago I wroteTHE GREAT SOCIETY © Little has changed, or perhaps much has; it gets worse.

It is only the giving that makes us what [who] we are. - Ian Anderson. Jethro Tull. . . Betsy
Betsy L. Angert Be-Think

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

marriage?
Posted by: Katrinepa on Jun 14, 2006 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was married for over 20 years, but this is certainly no solution to poverty.
If anything, the government almost awards those who do not marry. It is easier to get any kind of assistance if not married. Face the facts. DOn't get married, have babies, get money. It's how the USA works and it is awful. Many, not all, women on welfare, ahve men living with them, but no husband, and most men seem to prefer it this way as well.
How many older people get divorced, just to get better benefits as single people?! Plenty, and it is disgraceful. The Legislature would have to change many laws, if it were to encourage marriage in the US! Commitment does not necessarily equal marriage either, but the laws are against thos ewho do marry.
Bush has no clue abou the REAL WORLD, the one most of us live in. Perhaps not all his fault, but if one is to be the President of the USA, then he/she had better learn more about the average American, and how they survive. One of the critereia for being President should be that they have helped in a Soup Kitchen, or delivered meals to the elderly, sat with Aids sufferers and listened to their needs, visited schools in impoverished areas, and seen which children have holes in their shoes! This would be a person I could, in all good conscience, vote for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marriage can bring you down just as often
Posted by: donnaj on Jun 14, 2006 6:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a divorced mom and I can tel you from personal experience that marriage can drag you down as often as it lifts you up. I came from an upper middle class home. I married a man from an upper middle class home. He tok all my savings everything I had going in to the marriage and lost it all. I was on welfare. I divorced and within a few years, I was off of welfare and could stand on my own 2 feet. Thank God that there were some safety nets out there for me that allowed me to claw my way out of the hole my husband dug for me. With the help of those programs and my own hard work, I've been doing much better ever since.

My story proves 2 things. Husbands (and wives) can pull you into poverty. And, those social programs that conservatives whine about actually do work if the programs are funded and done well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A case for Gay marriage.
Posted by: kooz on Jun 14, 2006 7:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We just hesitate to share a bedroom with three or four unrelated folks.

No, we won't actually. Group sex is something that alot of married people do. Heterosexual group sex between married people is a threat to marriage everywhere. I'll give you some hard evidence when I'm finished the research.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A report on the Bush's marriage promotion and welfare reform
Posted by: AtMP on Jul 7, 2006 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Judging from the personal anecdotes and comments already posted here, some readers might be interested in a short report the Alternatives to Marriage Project--an advocacy and policy organization for equality and fairness for unmarried people--on the problems of welfare and marriage promotion.

The report, titled Let Them Eat Wedding Rings: The Role of Marriage Promotion in Welfare Reform, is in the process of being updated to include an analysis of this year's welfare reauthorization and the subsequent flurry of marriage-related grants for "Healthy Marriage" and "Responsible Fatherhood" programs. To download the original report, see linked text; for this and other information on marriage and welfare, see linked text.

AtMP is also working on furthering its action plan regarding the ever-increasing emphasis on marriage in federal and state legislation and funding. You can check our website (linked text) and newsletter for further updates.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]