2004-05-05 13:57
digitaldiscipline
I've been a frequent proponent of looking out for you and yours as being at, if not near, the top of the ol' priority heap. I've also been known to express the sentiment that it's not necessary to be an asshole to do this.
I tend to view ignoring, or at least not interfering with, someone else's efforts to look out for them and theirs as slightly positive to neutral.
I won't belabor my financial frustrations to the stubborn folks who continue to read my tripe. Let's just say that my household is far from being in an ideal or comfortable situation and leave it at that.
I'm sure many of you may have heard rumblings about the Powerball jackpot reaching dizzying heights.
I'm aware of the arguments for and against playing, at least in lieu of holding down a steady job. I've often used that bit of bumper-sticker wisdom: "Lottery: a tax on the math-impaired" myself - I think it's both clever and accurate.
At present, the jackpot is in the MLB/NBA-contract vicinity of $170 million - which is enough to get most people's attention, and even open the wallets of non-regular participants [including Your Humble Scribe]. It may or may not get the attention of distant love interests, but would probably work very well at drumming old acquaintences and unsavory familial types out of the woodwork.
However, this brings me to my pit-stop on the way back to the office after lunch, where I was politely idled behind as I strolled the parking lot to pick up a handful of hope and a pint of Cran/Raz, by a woman driving this.
I certainly don't begrudge the wealthy the trinkets that go with it - other than it being pearlescent white, it's a really nice f*cking car. But it seems that the entire raison d` etre for this particular errand was. . . to buy a quintet of Powerball tickets.
As someone who's lately been giving serious consideration to the idea of home ownership, it's more convenient to ignore the fact that a simple two-seat conveyance costs approximately what my current pre-approval for a mortgage would pay for than dwell on it. Hearing the frustrations of friends with well-paying jobs in inconveniently expensive locations detail the trouble of finding even moderately-sized housing under three hundred and fifty grand hasn't done much to buoy my spirits. Our discussionary foil, Missuz Mercedes, lives in a nice development that meets these criteria. Those of you who enjoy watching golf may well have seen her neighborhood this past weekend, since the HP Classic is held just down the way, in posh English Turn. It's nice, if a bit stuffy, and inconvenient to get into and out of, but very clearly an enclave for wealth.
But I am left to wonder - with poverty so locally prevalent (one of the singular features of New Orleans is the lack of zoning, so that affluent developments are cheek-by-jowl with rent-controlled row housing). . . Missuz Mercedes and her inferred husband (or at least her lucrative half of a pre-nup) obviously aren't hurting financially. . . so why go out of their way to take a shot at the lotto? Statistically, most lottery participants are not nearly so high on the hog; is "financially disadvantaged" still the correct term?
But for someone who seemingly doesn't -need- a financial windfall put their hat in the ring, either to win the whole enchilada outright, or split the prize with someone who will almost certainly have been starting off a lot further down the economic curve. . . it troubles me.
Those of you who frequent blogspace or any of the myriad online communities that are rife with the occasional Twenty Questions polls (or any of their iterations) have probably seen some variant of "What would you do if you won the lottery?" as a topic. I've spun that hypothetical junket a time or three myself.
But I'm left to wonder how different Mrs. Mercedes' answers might be from someone who lives a block away from the gas station, in the projects. Or how different mine are from either of theirs.
I can say, however, that it's only the kind of question I'd answer once.
I tend to view ignoring, or at least not interfering with, someone else's efforts to look out for them and theirs as slightly positive to neutral.
I won't belabor my financial frustrations to the stubborn folks who continue to read my tripe. Let's just say that my household is far from being in an ideal or comfortable situation and leave it at that.
I'm sure many of you may have heard rumblings about the Powerball jackpot reaching dizzying heights.
I'm aware of the arguments for and against playing, at least in lieu of holding down a steady job. I've often used that bit of bumper-sticker wisdom: "Lottery: a tax on the math-impaired" myself - I think it's both clever and accurate.
At present, the jackpot is in the MLB/NBA-contract vicinity of $170 million - which is enough to get most people's attention, and even open the wallets of non-regular participants [including Your Humble Scribe]. It may or may not get the attention of distant love interests, but would probably work very well at drumming old acquaintences and unsavory familial types out of the woodwork.
However, this brings me to my pit-stop on the way back to the office after lunch, where I was politely idled behind as I strolled the parking lot to pick up a handful of hope and a pint of Cran/Raz, by a woman driving this.
I certainly don't begrudge the wealthy the trinkets that go with it - other than it being pearlescent white, it's a really nice f*cking car. But it seems that the entire raison d` etre for this particular errand was. . . to buy a quintet of Powerball tickets.
As someone who's lately been giving serious consideration to the idea of home ownership, it's more convenient to ignore the fact that a simple two-seat conveyance costs approximately what my current pre-approval for a mortgage would pay for than dwell on it. Hearing the frustrations of friends with well-paying jobs in inconveniently expensive locations detail the trouble of finding even moderately-sized housing under three hundred and fifty grand hasn't done much to buoy my spirits. Our discussionary foil, Missuz Mercedes, lives in a nice development that meets these criteria. Those of you who enjoy watching golf may well have seen her neighborhood this past weekend, since the HP Classic is held just down the way, in posh English Turn. It's nice, if a bit stuffy, and inconvenient to get into and out of, but very clearly an enclave for wealth.
But I am left to wonder - with poverty so locally prevalent (one of the singular features of New Orleans is the lack of zoning, so that affluent developments are cheek-by-jowl with rent-controlled row housing). . . Missuz Mercedes and her inferred husband (or at least her lucrative half of a pre-nup) obviously aren't hurting financially. . . so why go out of their way to take a shot at the lotto? Statistically, most lottery participants are not nearly so high on the hog; is "financially disadvantaged" still the correct term?
But for someone who seemingly doesn't -need- a financial windfall put their hat in the ring, either to win the whole enchilada outright, or split the prize with someone who will almost certainly have been starting off a lot further down the economic curve. . . it troubles me.
Those of you who frequent blogspace or any of the myriad online communities that are rife with the occasional Twenty Questions polls (or any of their iterations) have probably seen some variant of "What would you do if you won the lottery?" as a topic. I've spun that hypothetical junket a time or three myself.
But I'm left to wonder how different Mrs. Mercedes' answers might be from someone who lives a block away from the gas station, in the projects. Or how different mine are from either of theirs.
I can say, however, that it's only the kind of question I'd answer once.
◾ Tags:
(no subject)
In a more general sense, though, such obscene forms of conspicuous consumption as that car upset me a great deal. While I do understand the principle of luxury/high performance cars, there comes a point where no matter how much money you have to burn, you shouldn't burn THAT MUCH on what is, in the end, just a car.
(no subject)
I was reading a C&D review of the M-B Maybach, the vehicle of choice for well-heeled rappers and NBA players, and the author made an interesting observation that, to a guy with a hundred million dollars, a hundred and fifty grand, as a percentage of his net worth, would be like me buying a new pair of jeans. Non-trivial, but hardly a meaningful percentage. Sobering observation.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
;-)
(no subject)
Back off and let the working poor win.
We don't get Powerball here. Sadly.
(no subject)
I think your mercedes rage is akin to the irritation I felt upon hearing that JLo's mom won 2 million at Atlantic City playing nickel slots. Yes, granted, her daughter is rich, which doesn't mean that she's wealthy, but I'm sure she probably doesn't want for much, either. grrr.
Just economics......
Besides - she can't win. I called dibbs.
(no subject)
the argument proposed by my boss ran thus: "a few years ago i was making what you earn and doing fine. now i make more but i have more bills. the more you make the more bills you have."
now, when it comes to car- and home-ownership, or raising progeny, i can understand such things. by avoiding the cost of purchasing and maintaining a car i am able to live in a spacious two-bedroom in a neighbourhood where i couldn't afford a studio otherwise.
however, it begs the question: at what point do people become money-stupid? some start out that way (my little bro unfortunately being one of them. i love him dearly but a few weeks homeless would teach him more about money than any amount of lectures and support he receives from my parents. but i digress. i must also note that i am not a parent. praise allah.) others seem to reach a certain point at which the the rate of expenditure-to-income suddenly veers widely and rarely recovers. (i've heard this blamed as both the result and the cause of our current debt-fueled economy.)
the above argument sounds like faulty logic to me, but i don't know of a single person who would say no to additonal income, and the more one has the greater one's aspirations seem to become. go-go greed nation!
(no subject)
1 -- My theory is that greed is one of the most central features of the human condition. It's probably wired into our DNA to promote survival and all that. What you're describing rags me off too though. I'm reminded of someone who won the state lottery here a while back who already owned a number of construction companies. (!) There comes a point at which people ought to be -embarrassed- to win, ya know?!
2 -- That being said, one never knows what someone's objective situation is. In my case, for instance (without giving tmi), appearances aren't reality.
(no subject)
I used to know both. Now I know neither.
I'm paid ok for my cube dwelling. At least better than my friends who're stuck in the $10/hr grind. But I used to be below the poverty level, so I had to watch every penny. Now I don't, but I wish I had more cash.
*shrug*
(no subject)