I've been thinking a lot about the impermanence of things lately, and there will be a more abstract post about this at some point, but this has been annoying me specifically this week
( Read more... )
I had guilty feelings of hope about this recession: the one in the 80s mostly seems to have been a class centred / North-South recession, where this time it looked more likely to spread the misery around. Because I anticipated the plaintive wail of Daily Mail readers finding that when they did go and sign on it turned out they weren't given a new TV, house in #nice-part-of-town, a car and an unlimited supply of liquor.
Though while I hoped it would bring them down to earth about what life is like on the income they deem a luxury, it would probably have just been held up to prove that these things were only on offer to the unemployed masses if they were black / gay / immigrant / %daily-mail-enemy-du-jour%
(rest of comment deleted as I realised I was just heading into Medium Grade Ranting)
The kicker for me is not the people who can't seem to imagine themselves in this situation. Those with massive inheritance or golden parachutes are an extreme minority. It's the vast majority of those that oppose "government handouts" and the like that have, themselves, been supported by these same systems. People who have taken unemployment, medicade, even welfare, and food stamps (My experience is US based), yet turn around and talk about this imaginary "other" that is mooching away all their now hard earned money via some of the lowest taxes in history.
It boggles my mind because they *have* experienced the temporary-ness of these situations, yet are still convinced the safety nets should not be there anymore. Those same safety nets that caught them and helped boost them back up to be contributing members of society.
Comments 15
I had guilty feelings of hope about this recession: the one in the 80s mostly seems to have been a class centred / North-South recession, where this time it looked more likely to spread the misery around. Because I anticipated the plaintive wail of Daily Mail readers finding that when they did go and sign on it turned out they weren't given a new TV, house in #nice-part-of-town, a car and an unlimited supply of liquor.
Though while I hoped it would bring them down to earth about what life is like on the income they deem a luxury, it would probably have just been held up to prove that these things were only on offer to the unemployed masses if they were black / gay / immigrant / %daily-mail-enemy-du-jour%
(rest of comment deleted as I realised I was just heading into Medium Grade Ranting)
Reply
Wise words, madame. The thing about this fact is, sadly, that everyone knows it, after all. They just don't want to accept it...
Reply
Something odd seems to have happened to your link though. Let's try again
Reply
Reply
It boggles my mind because they *have* experienced the temporary-ness of these situations, yet are still convinced the safety nets should not be there anymore. Those same safety nets that caught them and helped boost them back up to be contributing members of society.
Reply
Leave a comment