| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« The Wonder Years | Main | Symbiosis, Deep Homology, and Planetary Osteoporosis »

August 01, 2011

The value of a dollar

by Dave Munger

Obamaboehner

A typical conversation about money with my stepbrother goes something like this: I ask how things are going, then he tells me something that has gone wrong. His TV is broken. One of his teeth is disintegrating and he needs to go the the dentist, but it's not covered by Medicare. Mark's small income from Social Security Disability barely covers his mortgage, food, gas, and the fixed utility bills he must pay every month. Whenever anything unexpected occurs, it's a crisis.

It's a crisis for me, too. I give him some extra money each month to help with the inevitable unexpected expenses and to put into repairing his flood-damaged home. But it's never enough. So when Mark mentions a problem that this regular income can't cover, it's an awkward moment for both of us. Mark doesn't want to ask me for additional help; he thinks I'm doing enough already. I want to help, but I'm not made of money, and my wife and I must balance our financial decisions about Mark with other needs, including putting two kids through college.

So I tell Mark that he should go to the dentist and not worry about the money; I'll cover it. But I don't say anything about the TV. I feel terrible that he doesn't have a working TV; he's isolated enough as it is, but clearly that's not as important as the teeth, right? Or is it? Maybe I should just write him a check and let him decide how to spend it. But what if the check doesn't even cover the dental expense?

Mark tells me everything is getting more expensive and his money doesn't go as far as it once did. He hasn't gotten a raise in his disability payments for two years -- and I haven't increased the amount I'm sending him either. Mark doesn't buy the reasoning of my column from a few months back, where I point out that while prices haven't increased much in recent years, they have increased more for people like him.

From his perspective, prices haven't just increased a bit more than average; they've increased a lot. He's furious that the most-commonly reported measures of inflation ignore food and fuel prices, since they are some of his biggest expenses. When I remind him that the Social Security cost of living adjustment does include food and fuel prices, he's not impressed: He still hasn't gotten a raise in two years; how can I explain that?

I can't, other than to say it's political.

I've seen an argument that one way to control entitlement spending is to tie cost of living adjustments to "chained" price data. This measure adjusts the inflation data to account for the fact that when, say, the price of steak goes up, people tend to substitute cheaper products, like chicken or hamburger. If steak goes up 10 percent but people are now eating chicken, we shouldn't give them a cost-of-living increase to pay for steak, this line of reasoning goes.

But using chained pricing data is problematic when you're talking about people in poverty. They're already buying the cheapest products they can find. If prices go up, they have fewer options for changing. Any many expenses are fixed. There's no way for Mark to substitute a cheaper mortgage or electric company. Since these fixed costs take up most of his budget, he doesn't benefit much from substituting cheaper products.

And as Mark notes, buying the cheapest products has another cost: they break more frequently then higher-quality items that wealthier people can buy. Part of the reason he needs a new TV now is because he bought the cheapest TV in the store three years ago.

When we ask people to "substitute" products because the products they used to buy are now too expensive, aren't we asking them to reduce their standard of living? If a person is already living in poverty, how much further can we ask them to pare back? Should they be allowed to have a TV? What about teeth?

As I write this, Congress is locked in a game of chicken about the debt ceiling, with competing Democratic and Republican visions about how "bold" they can be with budget cuts. Maybe the issue will be resolved by the time the column is published, and maybe his Social Security check will arrive on schedule August 3. (Incidentally, this is the reason the debt-ceiling deadline is set for August 2: The third is when millions of Americans receive their Social Security payments, and if the ceiling isn't raised, there may be no way to pay them.)

Regardless of what happens, Mark won't be able to stop worrying. His income, which he earned by paying into the Social Security system for decades, is no more than a negotiating chip in the budget debate. Maybe it will be spared this time around, but next time he might not be so lucky.

He's disabled; he can't work at a regular job, so if his benefits are cut, he will have few additional options. Meanwhile, fuel costs continue to rise and his electric and gas bills soar to new heights. He's afraid to go to the dentist because he hasn't been for years and his treatment will almost certainly be painful and expensive. And when he gets the bill, he'll have to hope someone is generous enough to pay it for him.

Posted by Dave Munger at 12:20 AM | Permalink

Comments

Excellent piece. One of the ways we subsidize poverty in America is by making available copious amounts of cheap crap. We then say, "Oh, they're not really poor b/c they have all the stuff a middle class person does." Except of course it's inferior quality, doesn't work as well, breaks easily, and so it usually ends up costing more in the long run. I wrote about that exact same phenomenon a few months back.

Posted by: Akim Reinhardt | Aug 1, 2011 9:52:19 AM


William Greider on Obama's Bad Bargain

Posted by: Louise Gordon | Aug 1, 2011 12:00:03 PM

It's a shame, good essay though. In keeping with the theme, here's Matt Yglesias commenting on the Heritage Foundation's recent attempt at explaining how poor people aren't poor because they have refrigerators.

Posted by: Ben Schwartz | Aug 1, 2011 2:03:24 PM

Forget the cheap appliances, it is the staggering cost of health care that is deadly to the poor. A single-payer health care system is essential to meet this fundamental right; far more important than the right to bear arms, but the voting sheeple have their more important priorities drilled into them by the rethugs while the democowards try to see who can give up the store faster. Nader was right from the very beginning, but he got pilloried for shouting that the emperor has no clothes.

Posted by: Sam | Aug 1, 2011 3:01:57 PM

Dave,

Buy him a TV! You can get a small one for $100.00

Posted by: J.Hawkins | Aug 1, 2011 4:34:28 PM

I understand, but in other countries this sad situation so well described here is a dream never fulfilled of the real poverty... and I'm speaking about the retired "middle class". Also in many other countries the dentist is not included in the healthcare insurance. I would describe other facts from foreign countries, but I expect the natural American "insular" reaction: ". we don't care about others, we are in America"...However it's not true: this is not America, but a part of the global world. And also a part in debt, with no industry; an empire in decline. And this is very sad.

Posted by: Mirel | Aug 2, 2011 6:31:52 AM

This is what I deal with as a single mom, and when I get attacked by my ex-husband as to how I spend the money that is sent to the child-support office from his paycheck. If I get an unfamiliar teller or I mention it to someone who has no experience with divorce, their whole pooint of view changes. They start treating me like I'm poor and uneducated, yet I'm smart and employed. My income used to be considered middle-class! wtf?! I more than fullfill my responsibilities at home and my 'income' is totally spent in the interest of my children... but here I am buying Kool-Aid instead of 100% juice, hamburger helper instead of fruits and vegetables, working twice as hard and not getting any farther ahead. I have half the time that I need in order to attend to their needs than before and I'm just barely staying afloat. wtf?!

And Dave's experience with Mark is exactly my experience with my dad (I think I revealed that once before on here)... except I can't help him out. It's always something but he used to make a very good wage as an experienced and expert custom carpenter, self-employed and working in the nicest areas of town on the most interesting projects you can think of. But in the last several years, I've had to watch him become helpless.

It's a terrible thing and I'm just glad more and more people are seeing it and seeing how painful and life altering it is to find yourself on the wrong-side of the income gap in America. The conservatives are in survival mode... and most of them have money and think all poor people are insolent, deranged, and non-white. We should spend a little more time calling out "Bullsh&t!" on this type of thinking and Dave's post and the other links in here are a great start to personalizing the debate on where we should be putting American dollars if we expect to ever dig out of this mess.

What do you think Mark would do if he had the support services that he needed? What does his disability NOT keep him from, and what would raising him from the poverty line do to support these things?

People are not generally lazy. We feel the need to be occupied and productive. You can't encourage effective (GDP raising) production if you're actively attempting to suppress the population... unless of course you are [pick a country]. Are we aspiring to be like them? Seems like the direction all this is going in... sounds nothing like the freedom rhetoric that we so often hear from our politicans.

Posted by: unfinishedscript | Aug 3, 2011 11:51:34 AM

What I don't understand is why the Tea Partiers are undermining their own middle class base. They can't all be getting big payouts from the Koch brothers and Rupert Murdoch. So what will they do when they lose their formerly secure jobs? When unemployment hits 20%? Will the Tea Partiers like lining up with thousands for jobs at MacDonalds? They will soon find out.

Posted by: J.Hawkins | Aug 3, 2011 12:41:40 PM

Bryan Caplan thinks we all just need to have more babies and all these problems will be solved.

Posted by: Sister Y | Aug 3, 2011 1:33:45 PM

J: I think they are trying to fight a fight that paints the picture that progressives have sucked the government dry with their public welfare programs, it plays directly into

a) underlying and persistant racism,
b) capitalist/individualist sympathies, and
c) an undereducated citizenry

That's their base and its plenty strong of comfortable, formerly middle-class rural/suburban populations. As it's become more apparent that much of our political system has been corupted and polluted by special interests (their BIGGEST employers and therefore this populations loyalty - therefore this populations predominate philosophical knowledge base as well, equating economic freedom with actual freedom while ignoring the actuality that most 'economic freedom' is bestowed to those who can pay for it) the Republicans are acting as if they are against government to continue to hold /grow their support.

If empiracal evidence could be convincingly conveyed to these folks, they still might not believe it. They believe government and corporatism is corrupt (and don't we all) but the difference is, they feel like these guys are on their side, when in reality they are corporate puppets tearing down everything that ever got in the way corporate rule, like, I don't know, services to people who need it.

It's a crazy intelligent plan they are carrying out, but its clear that its making much of our ACTUAL base population (moderate Republicans and moderate Dems) very uncomfortable. The Tea Party is a small but destructive faction of all this. And the more they tear things down, the more likely it is the Republican party can succeed... and the more support they will gain. As living becomes more difficult they will be able to blame it on the incumbent.

So, what's next? How to stop this insanity? I don't know.

Posted by: unfinishedscript | Aug 5, 2011 12:49:34 PM

Sister Y: seriously?

You can't build an argument off of this:

Except for the United States and Israel, every modern economy now has fertility below the replacement rate.[4]

[4] The United States had a total fertility rate of 2.1 in 2008; it has since slipped slightly below replacement. Several oil-rich Gulf states with high per-capita income also have fertility above the replacement rate, but they arguably don’t qualify as “modern economies.” For total fertility rates, see UNdata.

ummmm... doesn't this completely discount the need to support under-devloped nations? and the HUGE expense involved (no matter who's paying it)... and well, doesn't it fly in the face of the 'sacredness of human life" to write EVERYONE ELSE off the books?

And except for the US and Isreal is like saying, except our world leaders who are totally in cahoots and terribly dominant in our world economy and policies....

Thanks, for the link ;)

Posted by: unfinishedscript | Aug 5, 2011 12:56:13 PM

Not to take over the script but:

"Without high levels of immigration, most will see their populations fall in coming decades.[5]" from Sister Y's link...

I can't help myself, is it really plausible that people won't do whatever they can to survive and try to provide a better life for their family? Seriously? Wtf? As if they are maggots feeding on the rotting soil of their native land waiting to die. This is absurd.

Posted by: unfinishedscript | Aug 5, 2011 1:00:10 PM

Ok, read the rest of it... I should likely do that before I respond, Sister Y...

damn him on the immigration points.

Posted by: unfinishedscript | Aug 5, 2011 2:03:23 PM

unfinishedscript

I think you're right. The Tea Party blames the poor when all the evidence shows that income inequality is increasing very rapidly. The rich have never paid less tax. General Electric paid no tax. This means the Tea Party is completely divorced from reality. Conservatives are experts at blaming the victim.

Posted by: J.Hawkins | Aug 5, 2011 2:11:05 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

roger gathmann on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

Doogle on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

Kyle on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Peter John on Gezi Park

dthoko on The History of Typography - Animated Short

Richard on John Gray’s Godless Mysticism

Abbas Raza on Why Steven Pinker Is Wrong

nogodrod on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Lusine on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Bill on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

j_93 on Gezi Park

j_93 on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Norman Costa on The Insanity Virus

Dave Ranning on Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations

Sundar on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Sundar on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

gaddeswarup on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

gaddeswarup on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

musafir on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Lusine on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Brad Wilson on Gezi Park

Raza Husain on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

Brad Wilson on The Insanity Virus

billy on Syria: Inventing a Religious War

rafiq on The Insanity Virus

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed