Ann loses job; was generosity a reason?(Surprisingly candid article)

Dallas Morning Snooze ^ | 1/12/03 | steve blow

[Diddle E. Squat]

Here's a question to ponder: Are we too generous?

Let's mull that one today while catching up with Ann Love.

Ann is the young woman we have been following for the last few months as she tries to move from welfare to work.

Ann is 27 and the mother of two boys, ages 5 and 7. Their father is in prison for murder. Ann has lived in public housing and pretty much depended on government programs since they were born.

When we last visited with Ann, she had completed a job-readiness program and had gone to work in a South Dallas restaurant. But neither she nor the restaurant owner was very happy with things.

And sure enough, early last month, Ann was fired.

"I was so relieved!" she confessed last week. "That job just wasn't for me. They say you learn from your experiences, so now I know – I'll never work in a restaurant again."

Ann was in a jovial mood. Just the night before she had started another job-skills program offered by the STEP Foundation. And she learned that the top students would get office jobs next month at a mortgage-processing company.

"I'm going to get one of those jobs because I have confidence in myself," Ann proclaimed, perhaps to herself as much as me.

I didn't want to ruin her mood – or shake her self-confidence – but there was something ticklish I wanted to discuss with Ann.

Her restaurant job was at Lady Di's, owned by Diane Thomas. Mrs. Thomas grew up in Dallas public housing herself and knows all about hard work.

I had asked Mrs. Thomas why Ann wasn't doing well on the job. I didn't expect the answer I got.

"Too much has been given to her," Mrs. Thomas said. "She hasn't had to work for it. And when people are given too much, it makes them lazy."

Gingerly, I raised that issue with Ann last week. She seemed shocked. "So she's trying to say I'm spoiled? I wish!"

Well, I don't think anyone would confuse Ann Love with Anna Nicole Smith. But on the other hand, Ann has gone years without working and never once lacked the necessities of life.

I thought of that verse from Proverbs: "The laborer's appetite works for him; his hunger drives him on."

What hunger has there been to drive Ann on?

She certainly puts a high priority on providing for her boys. But as she had told me earlier, when talking about being fired, "My boys still had a good Christmas – a real good Christmas."

Indeed, they did. Thanks to the generosity of social-service agencies in town and one church, the boys were showered with gifts. Her oldest had asked for a jam box and got two.

Just for the sake of discussion, I asked Ann whether she would have worked harder at that restaurant job if she had known her sons' whole Christmas depended on her.

She thought a minute. "Probably," she said.

Are we too generous? Do we sometimes foster laziness?

"For some people, yes," Ann said. "But I'm not like that."

And she does make a case that she has shown initiative – in getting her GED, in taking computer training in the past, in starting job training again last week.

She said she would have been working all along if not for her son's illness. Her 5-year-old has sickle cell anemia. When he was younger, repeated sickness prevented her from working, she said. Now he's better, and she's eager to work.

Are we too generous? Sometimes so, it seems clear.

But maybe it's also that we are lazy in our generosity.

We let government give in big, blanket sorts of ways rather than working to meet specific needs in meaningful, personal ways.

And we find it much easier to give things than to give opportunity.

Ann is hoping for another opportunity. We'll see if things get in the way.

[Diddle E. Squat]

I hope Steve Blow doesn't catch too much flak for this article. Given the dynamics, such a candid column is all too rare in today's newspapers.

[Mo1]

PLEASE SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[Texas Eagle]

Are we too generous? Sometimes so, it seems clear.

I can vouch for this. I work for a church and part of my job is to put men and women who come in looking for some sort of assistance to work for whatever they are requesting. Rarely do I get somebody who will either work a full day or come back a second day.

And no matter how dire their financial situation is, they always seem to be able to afford cigarettes.

[Bullish]

Are we too generous? Do we sometimes foster laziness?

"For some people, yes," Ann said. "But I'm not like that."

Yes you are. You're exactly like that.

When our govt decided it should take from one group of Americans to "give" to other groups, it opened a Pandoras' box of evil.

They have ruined life for large groups of people and have lowered the quality of life in America for all.

[A CA Guy]

She'll always be on a government program her whole life. In her case she has a child with sickle cell anemia. Can you imagine her going off the dole and having to pay the medical bills on that?
Neither do I imagine that.

The story had the foundation to make a point about some people on assistance who's problem are themselves, but this sick child throws a wrench that will be the ultimate excuse for her. It doesn't have to be, but a child with major medical problems is a difficulty not faced by everyone.

We can't come down full throttle on a healthy woman with a dependent sick child.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I have seen two documentaries on this subject and both were long before welfare became what it is today. One was in the early sixties about an island in the South Pacific the U.S. had used for a military base but were pulling out. To compensate the natives for our intrusion we gave them lifetime welfare. They transformed from an industrious, happy, productive tribe of islanders to an unhappy lot of layabouts.

The second followed for three years a family of four (white) who were on welfare. At the end the producer was flabergasted that this family seemed perfectly satisfied with what ever level they could live at for free. Typically, all four were fat despite their other living conditions.

The biggest problem with government programs, other than the ethical one of taking from one to give to another, is that they are cold and indifferent, sometimes rewarding the unworthy while denying the deserving. The politicians get the credit, what little credit there is, but no one gets any satisfaction from the generousity. The giver and receiver are often resentful of each other. That is not true of charitable and voluntary support.

[PistolPaknMama]

this family seemed perfectly satisfied with what ever level they could live at for free.

That seems to be the case with a lot of these people. I knew a family on long-term welfare. The husband was nice but simple minded. The wife was a selfish conniver. She had to give up her job at the school cafeteria when her husband got a small raise at work. The raise was just enough to disqualify them for food stamps, so she quit work, otherwise, what she made at the school cafeteria would have to be spent on FOOD (as opposed to fun?). Hardly worth the effort.

[Sally II]

Good article.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

re: the producer was flabergasted that this family seemed perfectly satisfied with what ever level they could live at for free.

I have seen this same phenomenon occur with unemployment benefits. I have known both family and friends who honestly thought they were trying to get a job while on unemployment, but I could see how little time and effort they were really putting into their job search. They all took advantage of the time to relax at home, watch TV, take it easy, etc.

Then after unemployment ran out and they started to go broke, they all went out and got jobs. Not immediately, but you could see the huge effort to get a job ONLY after the benefits ran out.

Suffice it to say, I think the new 5-month extension of unemployement will end up being worthless to those out of work. It will merely enable them awhile longer. And they won'd be happy in the meantime because unemployment pays so little compared with an actual paycheck. Unemployment is merely enabling. Physically, the concept should work. Psychologically, it doesn't. It actually encourages people not to find work. Being BROKE makes you find work.

I'll don that flame-proof suit now...

[Will_Zurmacht]

"We can't come down full throttle on a healthy woman with a dependent sick child"

Yes, I for one can. I have no problem with taxes being used to help a sick child recieve medical treatments, and if dim witted souls want to buy the kid 2 boom boxes, great, hope they feel better about themselves. The question I ask is...Where is the father? Garnish that guys wages to pay for his kids food. Tie her benefits to her working and being a productive member of society. As for her not liking her job...name me a person who has liked every job they've held. Sometimes in life you will have to work a bad job for the patcheck.

[MississippiMan]

I've always believed, and still do, that unemployment is a farce. If you want work, you can find work. Perhaps not what you would like to do, but you can find work. I'd flip burgers at McDonald's before I'd sit on my butt.

As a business owner of many years, I can tell you that it gets harder by the year to find people who want to work hard. Offer work to that "will work for food" poster guy and see what happens. Yes, all the handouts in this country have definitely fostered laziness.

I heard of a case a few years ago where a person was able to get federal disability pay essentially because they were "allergic" to work. They "just couldn't deal" with the stress of things like having to be at a certain place during certain times, people telling them what to do, gosh-awful things like that.

Think we have a problem?

MM

[A CA Guy]

In this case the father is in jail and the boom boxes came from charity.

The spirit of the article is 100% correct. I just wish they would have chosen another mother under the exact conditions without a child with major medical problems.

The reason is that insurance for a kid like that can keep someone who doesn't earn much on welfare because of the high premiums for her child.

The same situation minus the sick kid would easily have me saying EXACTLY what you do.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

The road is long
With many a winding turn
That leads us to who knows where
Who knows where
But I'm strong
Strong enough to carry him
He ain't heavy, he's my brother

So on we go
His welfare is my concern
No burden is he to bear
We'll get there
For I know
He would not encumber me
He ain't heavy, he's my brother

If I'm laden at all
I'm laden with sadness
That everyone's heart
Isn't filled with gladness
And love for one another

It's a long, long road
From which there is no return
While we're on the way to there
Why not share
And the load doesn't weigh me down at all
He ain't heavy, he's my brother

[FreedomPoster]

>>I work for a church and part of my job is to put men and women who come in looking for some sort of assistance to work for whatever they are requesting. Rarely do I get somebody who will either work a full day or come back a second day.

I have a friend who used to offer bums, begging on the street downtown, a job doing landscaping work at his house. No one ever accepted.

[squibs]

Yes I had the same experiences in Phoenix , AZ. with
the "will work for food" poster people. Try to give
them a job , just try it. Laughable on 1 hand angering
on the other.
However I disagree with your statement about unemployment.
I've drawn unemployment several times in my life but I
had to pay unemployment tax while working so I feel it's
something I worked for. Let's not be to quick to judge
everyone since the turn of events since 9-11
Before that there were 50 machinist ads in the paper
every Sunday in phoenix. Now there might be 1.
Welfare is a different ball of wax though. No working
family should have to pay for daycare. Those on welfare
should be required to work in free daycare centers for
taxpayers. ( just a thought)

[Redbob]

"He ain't heavy, he's my brother"

How about, "He ain't heavy, he's a lazy obese slob with the work ethic of a British bureaucrat?"

Was your Poem-of-the-Day supposed to contribute something to the discussion?

[BlueLancer]

"He ain't heavy, he's my brother"

It has a good beat and you can dance to it?!

Now, how about a good rousing chorus of "Kumbaya".

[Redbob]

"No working family should have to pay for daycare."

Where do you get that idea? - Ms. Magazine?

How about if we said "No working family should have to pay for food," or "No working family should have to pay for their video rentals"?
Would you sign up for that?

My wife stays home, raises our son, so you could say I'm "paying" one entire income for daycare - should the government pay me for that?

And whose paycheck should these programs come out of - someone who made the decision not to have children, for instance?
What exactly DO you believe, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?"

[bvw]

I am older and wiser and my question following comes from that wisdom. But first I gotta say that the job performance was not her mistake, nor her "indolent indulgence" -- for a desire to be pampered is a strength of a woman, for a man must provide to it. No, her mistake is more basic, more horrid, more terrible, and to her children -- more damming. Let me ask the question:

Where's the Dad?

[Ches]

"Those on welfare should be required to work in free daycare centers for taxpayers."

Would you leave your child in the care of someone who doesn't think highly enough of their own family to work to support them?