Wiggle Room
By Noni Mausa
Wiggle Room
In a claustrophobic economy where the lions share of the fruit of citizens’ efforts is funneled to a small number of beneficiaries, where institutions intended to intervene on their behalf have been rejigged to work backwards, what can the little guy do to gain some wiggle room?
The poorest Americans have many strategies that provide small amounts of wiggle room, like working off-the-books, juggling several bank accounts or using payday lenders, locking kids in a closet so they can go to work, and stiffing landlords and various debtors when and as they can. Some are chosen strategies, some are just the result of not having enough tokens to satisfy all the turnstiles.
And these skills are ancient. Being dirt poor is a venerable world sport, and the tactics have been practiced since before written records.
But in the past century we seem to have entered a new situation, where the great majority of people are in a closed system with very little wiggle room, and most wiggle choices leading to less, not greater freedom and prosperity.
The bumper sticker used to say, “If you are not angry, you’re not paying attention.” But now it should read “If you are not claustrophobic, you don’t understand the situation.”
In my city, a man went missing a few years ago, and was finally found dead in a basement space behind a false wall – a space that was narrower at the bottom than the top. He hadn’t been shot or stabbed – in fact, he had fallen prey to his own efforts to escape. Every wiggle wedged him lower, and made it harder for him to breathe, until he suffocated.
The great question facing ordinary Americans is not how to find further wiggle strategies, to make do with less, to work harder to try to tread water under increasing burdens. That way lies less freedom.
In a way, Americans do understand this. Otherwise, why would they have disdain for the model of the immigrant many Americans scorn? – living ten to a room, on rice and beans, sleeping in shifts to make use of scarce bedspace, and all for wages that a babysitter would refuse? Americans scorn these living arrangements, but that’s where they’re heading.
And many of the wiggle strategies in use even 80 years ago (raising chickens, cutting firewood for heat) are impossible now. Urging the majority to do more with less, (“austerity”) while the 1% do less with far more, is not the solution. But what is?
Going Galt isn’t an option. The poor are their own hostages, and dropping out of the labour market in large numbers is what’s happening now, anyway. But would it be possible to move into the “rice and beans” model while concurrently building solid economic walls to provide breathing space and room for more effective wiggling?
Could the model of the Beguines show us a direction?
Well, we did buy a cord of firewood from a young mother who needed cash quickly to pay the family phone bill. Her two boys sat in the back seat of the truck while she did the finish work with an axe that looked bigger than she was. She gave us her card. She’s selling party candles on the side. Her husband was in construction, but is now picking up odd jobs when he isn’t working their wood lot. (He did most of the felling and splitting.)
These are solutions? Surely you jest?
Re communities of ‘the poor’ for mutual aid – Y’all might want to check out
http://webpages.charter.net/chiefuscg/commune.htm
a story of how one might be put together today. Or maybe not
ken:
Is the needle stuck in a scratch???
noni, the problem ive seen with setting up a commune (which i’ve considered on & off for decades) is that we then become increasingly more marginalized…hundreds, or even thousands of us dropping out and refusing to contribute then will have absolutely no impact on the rest of the world which is hungry for “progress” and “growth” and has been promised more technology & conveniences and is willing to fight for their “fair share”…some communes may survive, but the rest will get trampled in the stampede to get to & grab up what remains…
Noni,
Your solution is to build a commune???
Yea, that will work…almost as crazy as coberly’s ideas of a government dictatorship telling everyone how to live, where to eat, and how to think.
Do you guys have anything that actually increase individual liberty?
Islam will change
“Re communities of ‘the poor’ for mutual aid – Y’all might want to check out”
America has always been proud of its “cmmunities of the poor” though such groupings have gone by a variety of names in the past. A commune is one of the nicer ways of putting it and implies a small group banding together with some socio-economic purpose in mind. Hippies in the southwest, the Oneida community, etc. Short lived due to aging of the members.
More successful, as measured by the longevity of the groups’ existence, have been both the “pockets of poverty” (my personal favorite nomenclature) and the ghetto. While the latter often implies some racial or religious identity poverty is the most cohesive factor keeping the “members” together. And they persist. Aging has no significant effect as new and younger members are continuously joining though not necessarily by choice. So I don’t agree with the banding together approach to impoverishment. Who would want to to be so closely associated with the abject poor? It seriously impairs one’s personal self image.
I’m going to swuggest that the answer to poverty, as we are seeing it grow in our own socio-
economic community, would be a restructuring of the income distribution. I’m not suggesting government intervention, but if some change doesn’t occur we will begin to emulate the social structure of a third world economy. And not the kind that is trying to ascend, but instead is in steep decline. That could lead to unfortunate consequences for peace and tranquility. Those who are newly entering the ranks of the abject poor may take a dim view of their circumstances, more so than those who had been borne into such conditions in the past.
“Yea, that will work…almost as crazy as coberly’s ideas of a government dictatorship telling everyone how to live, where to eat, and how to think.” buffpilot
What coberly is that that you are citing? The Coberly who occasionally comments here at AB hasn’t expressed such stupid ideas as far as my reading of his comments can see. Strange that you attribute those ideas to him who has not expressed them.
“Do you guys have anything that actually increase individual liberty?” buff yet again
And who is it that is suffering some lack of individual liberty in the USofA? Is that the Koch family memebers? Or maybe you’re referring to the Waltons? Really, who is it that has been losing their liberty? Are you refering to the draconian Patriot Act? Or maybe you mean the de facto loss of liberty that the poor always suffer because of a lack of resouorces to either enjoy freedom of movement and association or the freedom to defend themselves against ideological assault.
All things considered, how about Soylent Green? We could start with the Judicial branch, then the Legislative branch, the Exective Branch, then each one of the different departments, Wall Street, Insurance, Power/Energy, Governors, etc. etc. In due order, all the problems of health care will be solved.
Now, I’m sure that there are those amonst the loyal AB here that will take issue, but I’m old, have seen much of what passes for reality, so I’d be willing to forstall having to finish out my life in a nursing home with others, at the mercy of some bean counter who thinks it’s O.K. for the inmates to share the same diper each day, sort of like a raffle, so my great grand childen might have a chance other then the one this present bunch of sycophant dilletants would have the country go through.
I’m almost 64 – a lifetime entrepreneur – and have never seen class warfare. Americans always believed that if they worked hard enough – they too, could be millionaires.
Now, the common belief is that capitalism is and has always been cronyism – wealth is evidence of crimes against the rest of us.
I’ve been a Main St merchant all these years, and I can tell you the retail game has always been rigged against the independents. Malls routinely give great deals to todays Anchor Blue or Old Navy corporate tenants… and the independents pay a premium for having this ANCHOR in the mall.
this is rubbish of course.. but the big guys have access to capital – and multiple locations for very mediocre operations. This system didn’t give us the best – but the best connected.
If I had bunked with a future investment banker at Harvard, I too, might be able to open 200 Shoe Pavilions across the nation … .selling a very average selection of shoes.
the game is and has always been rigged.
The difference is now everybody understands – and the country is looking for a good hanging judge.
And not a moment too soon.
Who said – behind every great fortune is greater crimes? – It’s always been true. But now Americans believe it…
We are on very dangerous ground here – and Robespierre is speaking at the Jacobin Club as I post this. Not a good time for McMansions and ostentatious wealth.
Soon the piracy we see in the Caribbean will come to American waters and suburbs.
“Re communities of ‘the poor’ for mutual aid – Y’all might want to check out”
America has always been proud of its “communities of the poor” though such groupings have gone by a variety of names in the past. A commune is one of the nicer ways of putting it and implies a small group banding together with some socio-economic purpose in mind. Hippies in the southwest, the Oneida community, etc. Short lived due to aging of the members.
More successful, as measured by the longevity of the groups’ existence, have been both the “pockets of poverty” (my personal favorite nomenclature) and the ghetto. While the latter often implies some racial or religious identity poverty is the most cohesive factor keeping the “members” together. And they persist. Aging has no significant effect as new and younger members are continuously joining though not necessarily by choice. So I don’t agree with the banding together approach to impoverishment. Who would want to to be so closely associated with the abject poor? It seriously impairs one’s personal self image.
I’m going to suggest that the answer to poverty, as we are seeing it grow in our own socio-economic community, would be a restructuring of the income distribution. I’m not suggesting government intervention, but if some change doesn’t occur we will begin to emulate the social structure of a third world economy. And not the kind that is trying to ascend, but instead is in steep decline. That could lead to unfortunate consequences for peace and tranquility. Those who are newly entering the ranks of the abject poor may take a dim view of their circumstances, more so than those who had been borne into such conditions in the past.
The TRIAD commune!
Buff, you were a charter member of one of the main communes of the socialized war state.
Protected industries, protected equipment, and pout off developing on manned vehicles for 40 years for the pilots’ union.
Cost plus contracts and build airplanes no longer needed.
The food growing communes are too small potatoes…………..
Taking away from kids for new legs of the stool in subs and bombers as I type!
Endless communism for the war makers.
Buff
please stop.
you don’t understand what i was saying, and you have built it into a monster of your own creation. this from a man who chose an occupation where he would never have to make an important decision ever again.
georeann
generally the hanging judges hand the wrong man. the revolution in france may have ended the ancien regime for a time, replacing it with the Terror and then with Napoleon. but look who’s running the place now.
America is still a democracy and in theory we ought to be able to fix things here. in theory. maybe in practice we can’t and we will have to go through a bloody revolution, or conquest by a vigorous new power in the world. or just four thousand years of slavery.
my bet is on a Star Trek future, where if you’ve got the grades you can get a pair of pajamas and a berth on the Enterprise where the Captain’s word is law, so of course no one ever questions it. the rest of humanity will be left below in a kind of greater Hong Kong… or Haiti.
What’s on your mind…
georgeann
generally the hanging judges hang the wrong man. the revolution in france may have ended the ancien regime for a time, replacing it with the Terror and then with Napoleon. but look who’s running the place now.
America is still a democracy and in theory we ought to be able to fix things here. in theory. maybe in practice we can’t and we will have to go through a bloody revolution, or conquest by a vigorous new power in the world. or just four thousand years of slavery.
my bet is on a Star Trek future, where if you’ve got the grades you can get a pair of pajamas and a berth on the Enterprise where the Captain’s word is law, so of course no one ever questions it. the rest of humanity will be left below in a kind of greater Hong Kong stew… or Haiti.
“the revolution in france may have ended the ancien regime for a time, replacing it with the Terror and then with Napoleon. but look who’s running the place now.”
That’s not fair Coberly. First the regime ancien deserved to be replaced and wasn’t going on its own accord. in fact the rest of royal Europe was circling the place and making some very scary noises. What’s a good patriot to do when it is obvious that the shoe on the other foot would kick the crap out of you and your boys? And the Terror was only a short though manic phase following years of suffering by the impoverished at the hands of the greedy. Granted that Louis lent us a hand in our own fight for independence, but only due to his need to frustrate the English. Now there is a group that knew how to elicit hate and loathing from others.
Let us not forget the Harmonites and the Oneidans. In both cases, mutual support, simple living, personal restraint (OK, not necessarily for the guys at the top) and skilled work led to great financial results. These were not communes created to enrich their members. They arose during a period of progressive reform and social experimentation. Other such efforts failed, but these succeeded.
We see in the comments the suggestion that a communal arrangement is bad by its nature. Dismissal rather than thought. As is often the case, checking the facts leads to a rather different view that simply relying on stereotypes. History suggests that communal arrangements can serve their members very well, or come to a bad end. (Leadership seems to matter a good bit, with local leadership and governance by concensus, within the rules of the commune, superior to rule by fiat. The good news is, the successful arrangements seem mostly to have been voluntary. Anybody who doesn’t want to sign up doesn’t have to. Those who do like the idea are more likely, I would guess, to contribute to success. In addition, these communities take many different forms. The Beguines did not require surrender of personal property. Harmonites did (I think).
Assuming that one choses to join a commune, and can leave if one wants, the notion that communal living limits “individual liberty” is sort of silly. The choice to live communally is another choice, not the absence of choice. Efforts to talk communal living out of existence? Now that is anti-liberty.
Let us not forget the Harmonites and the Oneidans. In both cases, mutual support, simple living, personal restraint (OK, not necessarily for the guys at the top) and skilled work led to great financial results, even though they were not created to enrich their members. They arose during a period of progressive reform and social experimentation. Other such efforts failed, but these succeeded.
We see in the comments the suggestion that a communal arrangement is bad by its nature. Dismissal rather than thought. As is often the case, checking the facts leads to a rather different view that simply relying on stereotypes. History suggests that communal arrangements can serve their members very well, or come to a bad end. (Leadership seems to matter a good bit, with local leadership and governance by concensus, within the rules of the commune, superior to rule by fiat. The good news is, the successful arrangements seem mostly to have been voluntary. Anybody who doesn’t want to sign up doesn’t have to. Those who do like the idea are more likely, I would guess, to contribute to success. In addition, these communities take many different forms. The Beguines did not require surrender of personal property. Harmonites did (I think).
Assuming that one choses to join a commune, and can leave if one wants, the notion that communal living limits “individual liberty” is sort of silly. The choice to live communally is another choice, not the absence of choice. Efforts to talk communal living out of existence? Now that is anti-liberty.
While we’re at it, this notion that a way of living different from our own represents a loss of liberty seems to mistake “my way of doing things” for “liberty”. It’s a common error in thought, but still a substantial error. Our pop-political culture has made blather about “liberty” a sort of shield against governance one doesn’t like. Run that through a couple of cycles of sloppy thinking and “liberty” comes to mean “stuff I like”. The notion that government always limits liberty is wrong, of course. The oft-cited counter-examples are Somolia and Afghanistan. Good government is a source of liberty.
I’d like to see the Koch brothers swinging from that hangin judges rope, but save that fantasy – any hedge funder or short seller will do.
We need this for our collective psyche…. that’s what hanging judges do.
Nothing says lovin like a Koch…. in the — well you get the picture.
Jack
as usual you are right. but me and Tom Paine would like to skip the Terror, and even Napoleon.
kharris
i agree with both your comments. it is rarely remembered that “communal living” was what got humans through the hard times from about one million BC until the rise of slave states and the “free enterprise” ethic.
traces of our genetic programming for communal living are still what makes living possible at all, but the devil is always trying to teach us how much better off we’d be with just a little selfishness. just this once.
Jack,
In coberly’s own words:
” coberly
Buff
you are making some sense, but you are overlooking two critical points
in a fight, people do not take the long view.
in a fight, if you give up ground, you may not get it back. the unions frankly don’t give a damn about the “voters” because they know the voters are ignorant, stupid, selfish, and easily misled, if not miscounted.
moreover, if they don’t put up a fight, the voters won’t even know there was an issue.”
If you scroll down in other threads you will find more than enough coberly quotes on how the masses must be lead by the smart elite. He basically, except for his SS mania, consistantly advocates for dictatorship at every turn becuase the unwashed masses are “ignorant, stupid, selfish, and easily misled.”
You can see it sometimes even in his SS threads. But usually only elsewhere. If you stay around long enough here at AB you will definitely see a statist streak in some of the commentors here. I have yet to see any of the main posters come out against any expansion of the federal governments power or reach. They like to grow the Leviathon…
Islam will change
Buff,
You’ve just disproven your own point re. Coberly’s comments. First you suggest that he has made reference to gov’t dictatorial powers. To wit: “as coberly’s ideas of a government dictatorship telling everyone how to live, where to eat, and how to think.” buffpilot
Now you say that the proof of such an idea is that coberly has commented on the necessity of unions to represent their workers in a vigorous manner in order to over come the ignorance of the masses (which sounds reasonable to me).
What has strong union representation got to do with government dictatorship? I’d say that coberly ideology as displayed here on AB has been reasonably consistent. That being, (sorry for the assumption of your ideas C. Correct me where I’m wrong.) the masses are often asses. They are easily misled by both government ideologists and corporatist dissemblers. The right and the left are often of the same mind, that government will represent their own best interests and the fact is that government functionaries are more likely to protect their own through sycophantic fealty to great wealth. Scott Walker being an excellent example.
Coberly, As noted I don’t mean to presume what you think. I’m just rephrasing some of what I think represents your prior commentary here. The only purpose is to deconstruct buff’s characterization of those comments.