A place for Liam to post essays, comments, diatribes and rants on life in general.

Those fond of Liam's humor essays, they have been moved here.

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

30 Days

[Note: Update below.]

Folks,

I've mentioned before, but there's a show called "30 Days", and I couldn't feel more strongly that everyone should be watching it.

While I have read some of the descriptions of upcoming shows that don't sound as socially important, the three I have seen so far absolutely are.

So far, I've seen:

  • One in which a "good ol' boy" spends 30 days living with a gay roommate in San Francisco. It should be hard for anyone to come away from that one without a little bit less of an opinion that gays are evil and should have no rights, or to think that somehow gay marriage is even important enough to be on the radar screen
  • The premiere, in which the producer and his fiancee move to a city in Ohio (I think it was Ohio, anyway) and try to live on minimum wage for 30 days. Amazing to watch. As with most minimum wage jobs, neither of their jobs carried insurance. The show's producer ended up taking a second job, just to sqeeze by for the month. During the course of the show, each of them got sick (she got sick, he got injured doing his manual labor job) and it was amazing watching them try to figure out whether they could afford a doctor, how to get treated, etc. Nine years since the minimum wage went up, and the purpose of the law (to make sure that anyone who works can at least live above the poverty line) is no longer being met.
  • The first one I saw, and in current times still the most important, in which a devoutly religious Christian man from West Virginia goes to live for 30 days as a Moslem in the American city with the largest Moslem population in the U.S. Anyone who still thinks Moslems are evil, or that Islam is any more inherently evil than Christianity, really needs to watch this show.
  • Whoops, I initially missed one. I also saw one episode taking a quintessential consumer couple and making them live 30 days on an eco-commune type community, living off of the land, etc. I forget this one because I really rather hated the woman of the couple. She was so totally self absorbed. For example, throughout the whole thing, she was incensed that he (a 6 foot plus bodybuilder type) was more concerned with finding some meat to eat than that she couldn't use her hair spray. Let's see, he's trying to sustain a massive body on rabbit food (not easy to do, based on the looks of everyone who lived in the community full time) and literally slowly starving, she's got a hair or two out of place, but yet she's convinced HE'S selfish because he can't see her need.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention that. There does seem to be a "fluff" show coming up, in which apparently a mother of a teen daughter for 30 days lives the hard partying college life, I guess with the hope that either the daughter will see how stupid the life is, or the mother will stop harping on her daughter.

But the three I've seen so far... there's an old saying about walking a mile in a man's shoes before you criticize him. I think most Americans would do well to follow this advice. And if you can't do it yourself, the next best thing is to watch someone else do it, and open your mind to the possibility that the journey that person goes through, the conclusions they come to, might be yours as well.

Liam.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your rant contains so much I would be VERY long in responding to all of it. Let me take just the premier show where the two try to live off of minimum wage. Just suppose that minimum wage were made to be a "living wage". I'm sure you know the term. Depending on the part of the country in which you live, a "living wage" could be $12.00 to $20.00 and hour. Let's take the middle say, $16.00. Let's add to that hospitilization for man and wife and 1 child at say $800.00 monthly. Would you want a high school student, working a summer job, flipping burgers, causing your whoppers to cost $15.00 each?
Or maybe you mean the people who don't qualify for higher paying jobs should automatically get this pay for any and every job they apply. Then consider the people that are already qualified to make that much per hour; would they not then want more? And if they get more, how about the ones who are already making more? Wouldn't they want more? Why stop at $16.00 per hour, how about $25.00 an hour and full benefits? I think you get the understanding of my argument.

Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:12:00 PM

 
Blogger Liam said...

I do understand, but I disagree.

Your example of the teenager is fine and dandy, but do we really want to get into a situation where we have not only the RIGHT but the RESPONSIBILITY to determine who is getting a job in order to determine what level of pay is required? Consider how much WORSE that would make the situation for poor adults, who would then not be able to get a job because employers would prefer to hire high school students to do the same job, because they can pay them less.

How do you suggest that people working minimum wage jobs survive? Most people who object to the minimum wage, or to an increase in it, also object to welfare, but...

If you have children, one full-time minimum wage job brings in just enough money at the end of a year (around $10,500 before taxes) to cover yearly child daycare for two children. So if you have two children and are a single parent, you're actually better off taking welfare and staying home and watching your own children than you are going to work.

It really feels to me like the right wing viewpoint on this one is to look down the nose at the poor, to not help them out one iota more than absolutely necessary, and then complain loudly about the homeless.

Look, we're never going to legislate poverty out of existance, but c'mon, no increases in the minimum wage in 9 years? Do we REALLY think that the United States should have a "serf class", indentured servants working hard but never able to quite get by?

I don't see how anyone can think it's reasonable to expect someone putting in 40 or more hours of hard work during a work week not to be able to put proper food on the table, clothing on the backs, afford proper medical care or ever be able to save anything for a rainy day.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume that cost-of-living increases, just to keep the minimume wage level in constant dollars, is equivalent to someone suddenly wanting to make sure everyone makes $50k/year ($25/hr). There's a huge difference between your example and saying "9 years ago, it was $5.15. Adjusted for inflation, that should now be $6.50/hr".

In the end, my point is still valid. Even if you don't believe the minimum wage should be raised, you should still watch this program, get some sense of what these people go through. If humanity could just learn to have a little more empathy for each other, a lot of our problems would go away.

(Then again, I might as well hope for bullet-proof skin as hope that a neoconservative would ever feel empathy.)

Liam.

Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:47:00 PM

 
Blogger Liam said...

And note, I said "neoconservative", not "conservative". Because I just KNOW someone here is going to claim that I said no conservatives have empathy, and I'm just putting you on notice that if you try, you're being intellectually dishonest.

Liam.

Thursday, July 21, 2005 10:47:00 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Career Education