Support Woes?
A recent SSRD post
forces me to ponder, instead of closing down parishes or allowing dioceses to declare
bankruptcy to pay for the the abuse cases, perhaps the Catholic Church
should let its famous, rock star level clerics endorse products
again? I remember with Pope John Paul II toured Mexico City a few
years back, they sold “Papas Fritas” in honor of his visit. More
merch, more merch!
**
There’s this eternal internal debate about whether I grew up poor. And
I think that answer is no. Sure, I did not have money for braces,
and my mom went into considerable debt to send me to debate camp, of
all kooky things, but at least debate camp was on the radar, and my
grandmother subsidized my J. Crew habit back then. It was always
about feeling less well off than my relatives.
Then again, the Chronicle points out what it takes to eek out a living in the Bay Area:
year or $13.41 an hour to cover those expenses. A single parent with two
children needs $62,969 a year or $30.27 an hour. And a single wage earner in a
family where the other parent stays home — and provides child care —
would have to make $55,740 or $26.80 an hour.
The figure that it takes for the single parent surprises me since my
mom’s income when I was in high school and college was less than my
tuition and board at Hopkins.
No, I still contend that I was lucky.
**
Edit: I just visited Technorati because my referrer log showed that I had a hit from the search for “Folsom.” I didn’t realize that Technorati now includes tagged flikr feeds in its search results. Neato!
Saheli
September 28, 2005 @ 4:29 pm
Like Nickel and Dimed, these studies have to assume that the subjects live in a relative social vacuum–no relatives or friends helping out, no connections to special shopkeepers, no lackadaisical landlords, no substantial previous savings, no doctors providing samples, etc. etc. etc. I think in the end it averages out–for every householder who takes advantages of these connections there’s another who doesn’t have them to take advantage of. So the base number may seem a little high to some, but it will seem low to others. On the average, it’s probably pretty good.
Great article btw.
ToastyKen
September 28, 2005 @ 5:47 pm
At least those numbers are lower than the “A couple needs to make $300K/yr to eek out a living in San Francisco” you threw out before. 😀
badxmaru
September 28, 2005 @ 8:55 pm
how the heck do you live on 27k a year in silly valley?
that’s crazy.
i was on unemployment for a while, 380 a week, 19k
and I lived at home too
that was fricking hard, good thing i had my crx all paid for.
well I spose it could be done.
echan
September 28, 2005 @ 9:01 pm
No, Toasty, that was $200K a year for a family of 3. That was meant to cover: (1) Mortgage payment on a 3 BR house; (2) Private school tuition; (3) retirement and college savings; and (4) one vacation a year; and (5) middle class “luxuries.”
ToastyKen
October 3, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
Why do you need to go to private school?
ToastyKen
October 3, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
And what’s wrong with a 2 BR house?
echan
October 11, 2005 @ 7:01 pm
TK: I will donate money to Lowell, but I hate the SFUSD. Private school for my kid. Sorry, that’s just how I feel. 3 BR’s are not unreasonable; one room for the parents, one for the child, and a third guest room/office/library. SF houses are tiny!