B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
There are also parishes that help out neighboring poorer parishes but, again, I have no idea what is the particular situation of your parish.
- Status
G
graciew
Guest
Sloth in its deeper meaning is directly opposed to charity.
The Pharisses would not see they were in the presence of Charity itself.
Why would Jesus choose to be poor?Did he make the mistake of joining the less virtuous team?
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Here is your gospel of the funemployed:
latimes.com/news/local/la-me-funemployment4-2009jun04,0,7581684.story
L
Lujack
Guest
Those people aren’t poor!
20’s/30’s healthy single people with no kids who lost or quit corporate level jobs are not poor! Those people aren’t on welfare or any kind of poverty-aid program; some of them seem to have gotten severance packages. Many of them were self-described workaholics who didn’t take sick or vacation days, so they were presumably building up a bit of a lump sum in their savings account!
Those are people who have enough money that they don’t need to work; they aren’t poor!
And actually, I have a hard time faulting them too much. I mean, in an ideal world those sorts of people would volunteer for worthy charities, but I’m not sure I can fault someone for saying “You know what, I’ve saved up quite a bit of money, I have no dependents, I’m sick of corporate America…might as well travel.”
G
graciew
Guest
Bubba,my Gospel is your Gospel.With capital letters.
When I first opened your article,“my gospel” according to you , I honestly sincerely thought " Cool ! I´d love to be windsurfing but I have tons of things to do! "
It didn´t cause me ire,nor anger.
Nor am I trying to upset you so that you thrust this article to me as “my” gospel.
Jesus chose to be poor.It is a fact.And there must be something that all of us have to rescue about this fact.
Unless you do not want to go there in your heart and in the thread.And I would respect you.
G
graciew
Guest
If there is a sin this provokes me…I must admit …it is a bit of envy…
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Jesus chose to die on the cross too. Are we to imulate that as well?
This neither provokes me to anger nor envy. What it does provoke is a question: is it charitable to support the funemployed? Is this was Jesus called us to do?
Now, as it happens, the discussion in this thread never progressed to the question of what to do about poverty if Charles Murray’s observations were correct; everyone was too busy arguing against his observations. Murray, himself, avoided proposing any solutions.
G
graciew
Guest
Bubba,you know the name of this thread may have provoked ill feelings.It can be offensive and unfair.or simply open the door to reflections that point in a diffferent direction than what you have expected.
Had you asked,are we choosing the wisest way to help the poor come out of poverty?Or, is the system depriving the poor of the help they need by helping people who take dishonest advantage of the system? or any other…the response would have been different in my opinion
Few if any of us have read the book.
Is it charitable to support the funemplyed? No,it is neither charitable nor wise to deprive those who need assistance from help by giving the funds to anyone,rich or poor,whom we know will intentionally and consistently use it for evil ends.This is how I see it.Even it they were my sons.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
In fact more than one person has rejected consideration of this question in preference to the belief that Charles Murray hates the poor even after every necessary clarification of the issues. Beyond that I will not comment in order to remain charitable.
I would say, especially if they were my sons. And I would say that even if the alternative was to flush the money down the comode because it not merely that they are wasting time and money but that they are learning slothful habits.
But my point in throwing funemployment into the discussion was simply to refute the claim that some have put forward that our charitable duties require thoughtless giving to the demands of others.
So we might ask, in this situation and others, what would thoughtful charity entail?
L
LilyM
Guest
Is that a Freudian slip? As someone who has been out of work for a few months, there is nothing in the least ‘fun’ about it.
L
Lujack
Guest
Now wait just a minute. The so-called “funemployed” don’t need and aren’t asking for support; they are living off of money they made while they were working and buyouts and severance packages they received when they left. They aren’t charity cases, they are people who made enough money that they don’t need to work right now.
That class of people isn’t unheard of, but they certainly are a minority, and are very different from people who are unemployed and badly need a job, or people who have a job but are struggling to make ends meet.
This “funemployed” group and people who are actually poor have no relation to each other.
L
Lujack
Guest
Its in reference to an article that he posted about a group that was called the “funemployed”. Essentially, 20 and 30 somethings who don’t have jobs but got good severance packages/buyouts and don’t necessarily need to work right now since they don’t have any dependents. So instead they relax and travel and live the good life.
More power to them if that’s what they’re capable of doing. Not that I’ll ever have enough money to do it, but if I was ever in that extremely fortunate position, I think I’d either have to join some kind of a volunteer organization or travel full-time. Anything else and I’d just go crazy because I’d be feeling like I’m doing nothing with my life. But I’m almost 100% sure that I’ll never have that much money that I can just a year off from working.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
Actually, I’ve known quite a number of people who have chosen to use their unemployment benefits to take a vacation.
That is a matter of dispute. Would you like to see a video of interviews with able bodied welfare recpients who reject any interest in gaining employment?
(And, no, I am not claiming that all unemployed are willfully so. I am simply establishing the need for prudence in charity.)
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
So let’s examine this very interesting morality of yours.
You say, of the funemployed, enjoy your easy life. But to the rich, you demand support of the poor regardless of any prudential consideration.
Am I the only one who sees the incongruity of that?
G
graciew
Guest
No,Lily.I used the term,cause as I understood it,Bubba meant people who were pecisely making fun of their unemplyment and not taking it seriously.
Besides,english is not my first language and I make unvluntary mistakes when using it.
I agree with you,from experience that being out of job is very painful.Hope it is clear.
L
Lujack
Guest
And that’s perfectly legitimate. Unemployment benefits are earned benefits from a system that they paid into while they were working.
Unless you hours and hours of interviews with thousands and thousands of people, you’ll never reach a statistically significant number. And its quite clear that the people profiled in that “funemployment” article were all working jobs. Someone on welfare might be able to spring for a few luxuries like a big-screen television; they aren’t going to be able to go to Mongolia and go camping for weeks at a time.
And God Forbid!! that somebody on welfare buy a luxury like a big screen television. George Orwell had an excellent analysis of this in The Road to Wigan Pier, when he discussed the British upper-class of the time criticizing workers on relief for buying butter for their bread. Essentially, he argued “they need it more than you do”-you noblemen and noblewomen have nice country houses and can go horseback riding on the weekend and have soirees and things; for that relief worker, a little bit of butter on his bread might be the highlight of his week so why not?
And I think I have the same feeling about the little luxuries that people on welfare might be able to get-okay, sure they have a big-screen television or a Playstation; why am I going to begrudge them the little things in life that bring enjoyment? They’re already poor; they already know they’re poor; they already know that the middle-class eats better food and goes on better vacations than they do; should they just be miserable all the time, too?
L
Lujack
Guest
The “funemployed” are rich or at least well off! That’s how they can afford to take a year or so off from working and travel! Healthy, no dependents, and presumably very little debt, if you look at the article. Poor people don’t go camping in Mongolia for long periods of time!
Besides, it is quite obvious from this article that this isn’t going to be a permanent lifestyle choice for these people; it isn’t fiscally possible. They got unemployment benefits or a severance package, and they are having an extended “Summer of George” (you know what I mean if you watched Seinfeld). This isn’t something that’s possible to do for most people; people who lose jobs as supermarket store clerks or janitors don’t become “funemployed”.
G
graciew
Guest
As I understand it,Lujack is referring to people who make decisions with their own money.
I suggest stop we stop using the term funemployed.cause the article points in this direction.
I understand the concern is with people who are receiving unemployment benefits and they could supposedly be working or are rejecting jobs.In other words,cheating on the system or taking advantage on it while the money could be used for cases that honestly and desperately need it.Does it sound a good definition of what we are talking about?
L
Lujack
Guest
If there was a shortage of applicants, if business couldn’t hire enough workers, then we’d have an issue and you’d be right. However, the studies on this are pretty clear-people are unemployed because there aren’t enough jobs, not because they are rejecting jobs. Now I’m sure its easy to come up with an individual case of a person who has rejected a job, but this on the whole.
B
Bubba_Switzler
Guest
That is certainly one issue. But it is not really the most important one.
The important issue that is common to many (not all) of the poor and the voluntarily unemployed is that they are willfully choosing not to work. In the case of those who can afford it, that seems at first glance to be a reasonable choice, but not necessarily, because as anyone who has sought a job knows, one thing that employers look for is continuous employment. The voluntarily unemployed can easily become the involuntarily unemployed.
Now returning to the main issue, if we accept Charles Murray’s observations, and the list of three “worldy” virtues that I had listed several times in this thread (stay in school, get and keep a job, don’t have children until you are married) the question that is raised is whether and how to take such an observation into consideration when considering prudential charity.
- Status