And just another thought that came to me:

People need to find happiness outside of money! We live in a society that has everything we need at any time we need it. To recognize that and not take it for granted could potentially help a person get through tough financial times.

I'm largely in agreement with Brian, except that I'll go a step further and suggest that this isn't so much a societal problem as it is a human 'problem'.

American Dream syndrome? Nah. Just good 'ol Gene Syndrome.

One thing to consider:  We don't know how much debt this guy had, and there are some situations where once you've dug your hole, it is really tough to get out.  I've had employees who were in their mid-20s with no higher education who were having a third of their minimum wage check garnished for child support.  They were having to work two 30 hour a week jobs to have enough to make their child support and afford their own rent.  In a really bad economy, I can see how that would lead to a no-win situation.  If you don't work 60 hours, you go to jail.  You can't get a better job because you don't have time to get any new schooling or skills.

I read somewhere that the average doctor has $200k in debt when he graduates medical school.  Add a mortgage, two cars, and two kids into the mix, and you have a recipe for disaster, even at 100k a year income.

I guess my only point is that people like Renee or me, who have no children and are relatively flexible as to living arrangements, monthly bills, etc, are far better equipped to deal with bad economies than those who have already bought into the "American Dream" at 19% interest.

I saw a photo of that house. There were TWO CARS in the garage, behind a crime scene tape. Better to shoot the whole family and himself, than to sell a car??? What a patriot.

I don't know what are laws in America, but here, when a family is on a social support, no money can be demanded from them, even if they have debts. And when someone from that family is able, then he/she can earn some money secretly. Such a private and state money together can give a decent living for a several years, at least here, which gives a good chance to find a job. Of course, it involves a masquerade for the labour office, being careful to not blurt out anything to an officer calling to check the people if they aren't working by any chance.

Yeah, it is now tough to live in America. One person known to my dad was trying to make his living there, he worked as a truck driver, had a house, etc. But his work didn't gave him enough of money to sustain himself and pay the mortgage, so he lost everything, the house too, and moved all his property, (some stuff and one motorbike) into one ship container and got it shipped here, to his homeland.

There's no point in murders and suicide, when tough times comes. The point is in survival, and as you surely agree, some things just doesn't lead to the survival. American revolutionaries surely didn't have two cars, when they fought for a freedom of the country.

I saw the same photo. My initial thought however was that the cars were possibly about to be repossessed. But to be honest, there was simply no way to know just by looking at the cars, whether they were of some significant value or not.

The laws in America are not the same as where you are.

Nice that your dad's acquaintance was able to get back to his homeland. Wonder if the man who killed his family and then himself had that option to get out. If he was a U.S. citizen ( and maybe further details are now available on the original news story), he may not have had other family in other parts of the world.

I don't think this man thought "tough times" were upon him and his family... I think he must have thought something far worse. But I suppose this depends on the definition of tough times.

I mostly agree with what you have stated about survival.

In this instance, comparing 18th century America(ns) to America(ns) of today doesn't work well. Revolutionaries, by and large, had essentially nothing of value to lose and therefore wouldn't have been nearly as distraught with agonizing grief over the tremendous financial loss of self-worth that in todays American society appears commonplace. Does that make the Americans of the mid to late 1700's tougher and more resilient to adversity ? I'd say, yes, it does. But the times were very different. Americans of this century aren't as accustomed to survival of the fittest. Many don't realize that their own lives are a special something of 'great value'.... far greater than any job or material possession.

I'm gonna go with you on this one.  It seems patently obvious that there are lives which are so horrible that death would be better.  I can't find the justification for believing that life is somehow the ultimate trump card in any discussion of meaning or value.  I'm not saying I think this guy should have killed himself.  I dunno.  However, I am saying that it's possible that given his available options, it's possible that he may have been justified in doing it.

Well, it's kind of a paradox.  On the one hand, there simply is no such thing in America as the kind of poverty you can find in the third world.  No matter how poor you are in America, you don't have to starve to death.   While there aren't many good options for the poor, considering how much we have in available resources, there are options.  It's just that comparatively speaking, most of them suck.  Many European countries do have much better options for the poor, given the wealth and resources of the country.

Consider it this way.  If you could guarantee a third world country that no matter what, nobody would starve to death, but they would have to go through a bunch of beaurocratic bullshit and hump it to soup kitchens to get crappy handouts, they'd consider it a boon.

Then again, living on the streets and eating out of a can is better than living in the desert and starving to death because there is literally no food to be found.  It's a matter of perspective.  If everybody's poor and starving to death, you don't feel like you're getting shafted by anyone in particular.  However, if you're eating out of the garbage can of a man who can afford two Hummers and a yacht, you might notice a slight discrepancy in the allocation of wealth.

If only atheism guaranteed rationality.

I'd say at least middle class - say $30,000 a year for an individual. An absolute minimum for life to be worth living would be having a home (rent, own or live with someone), enough food and SOME comforts (at least a TV with cable and some internet access, heat and AC.&nbsp I would consider the average life in the projects not worth living and can not blame them at all if they decide to take some from someone that is above average.

I'd certainly rather be dead than working at McDonalds or such.

Couple of things:

Definitely I'm not pointing to Europe as the end all and be all of poor living.  There are certainly some countries that have really shitty situations at this time.  I only mean to say that America lags behind countries with comparable resources and wealth in terms of caring for the poor.

Matt, I'd like you to consider that it's pretty presumptuous of you to.. well... presume on someone else's ability to decide their own life's worth.  Some pretty noteworthy pro athletes grew up in the projects, and if they'd simply offed themselves as soon as they could pull a trigger, they'd have missed out on a lot of material success.  Furthermore, material possessions are not the only thing happy people use to measure their happiness.  Just a few months ago, I got to hang out with a guy who literally owned nothing more than his bicycle, a couple of changes of clothes, a multitool, and some spare parts for his bike.  He lived that way on purpose, having sold all his stuff so he could travel the country with no encumbrance.  Wherever he went, he exchanged odd jobs for a couch to sleep on and food to eat.  As far as I could tell, this was a very happy man.

I know a lot of people who live pretty happy lives on far less than $30k.  Without a mortgage, car note, or kids, it's pretty easy to get three or four people into an apartment and have all the food and booze you want for $12-15k a year.  I know lots of people who do it.  This kind of goes back to the discussion on the American Dream vs. Real Happiness.  It doesn't take much to exist in America on very little income.  You just have to have a slightly different set of values than a lot of Americans.

Just saw the McDonalds comment, Matt.  I know people who work in a dishpit in a restaurant, and want to work there.  It's mindless work that pays them enough to buy food and booze, and that's all they want.  They won't take promotions to the prep kitchen because they don't want the pressure.

The fact is, some people don't measure happiness by money.  Again, what's good for you is fine, but please be careful assigning your own values to others.

Oh, and DamnDirtyApe, thanks for noticing how carefully I choose my words.  Would that others were so observant.

                        Geez, Hamby  I'll go and delete my reference to Alabania if it will make you feel better.

I'd definitely not want to live like that. Having to work more than 40 hrs a week would DEFINITELY make life not worth living. So would having to eat nasty stuff like that. I wouldn't consider volunteering fun - I'd consider it work without the compensation of getting paid. Lunchmeat? Canned vegetables? Mayo? Milk? I feel like puking just thinking about it.

Basically something not physical (I can't be on my feet even 15 minutes) not dealing with the public (Aspergers) and not gross. Maybe data entry? I'm going through OVR (Office of Vocational Rehabilitation ) which says I qualify at the highest level due to physical and emotional issues. Problem was it took until last month to get in and by then unemployment was almost over - 6 months isn't close to enough nowadays for unemployment. I qualify for SSI but it would be less than 1000 a month and takes 6 months to get it, which is ridiculous. Imagine a working person gets disabled through a home accident - who has enough money to survive 6 months without any income?

By saving the pills up I meant so I could take them all once I knew no more money was coming in.

...Isn't it odd, though, that even with this tremendous imbalance in desires we (I'm painting in broad strokes - 'we' being North American economies) still can't find a really satisfactory middle ground?

Take, for example, the fellow who traverses the country on his bike and owns nothing - essentially on a self-imposed permanent adventure for the rest of his life. I know a few people who'd love to do that (Hell, I'm one of them). This lifestyle would be on the extreme 'low-cost' end of the scale as far as state expense is concerned, and keeps the person happy. Then we have people in Matt's circumstances with his desires - more towards the 'expensive' end of the scale (though certainly not towards the extreme end); shouldn't we be able to balance this out so Matt gets his state-sponsored TV and Internet service while the wanderers take, essentially, nothing?

(...Well, I suppose first we'd have to take the conversation down the road of whether or not wealthier people should chip-in for poorer people, and I'm a waffler in that area. On one hand, I think very good points are made in sociology that welfare systems promote less violence / suffering; on the other hand, if you've worked hard and earned a lot of money (not to say that poor people don't work hard - just that wealthy people often work harder than they are given credit for), well, I don't know it's fair for to say that you should just hand-over man hours selflessly. I feel that it's sort-of like running into a burning building to save people - it's an awesome thing to do, but do I have the right to demand that you do it?)

Thank you Matt for providing the example for my last point. You are one of the many who choose not to realize that your own life (sans materialism) is worth living.... unless you are able to meet your own standard of what makes your life worthwhile and worth living.

I don't see any problem in such thinking, for each of us must decide for ourselves the questions and answers of the value of our own existence.

I see your point, but without life, there would be (heheh) little discussion of the meaning or value of living.

Agree wholly on both counts.

I have a gemfile on my desktop and to it I just added the above quote from Hambydammit.

This is a gem, people. Remember it. 

I'm thinking you mean, if you had to work at a McDonalds for more than just a couple months, no ?

When I was a teen, I worked at a McD's and a mom and pop Italian restaurant for about a year and a half.  Combined, I was putting in about 35-45 hrs. per week. It was hard work and, of course, it didn't pay a whole helluva lot, but I was young and any money I made was all mine. Wouldn't want to have to do that now, that's fer sure.

Matt, many of those jobs pay well above minimum wage. And they encourage growth from within...did you know that there are "managers" of that fast food chain that make close to 100K a year? Even their keyholders can make upwards of 30K.  ... however a person would need to be on their feet for about 30 hours a week...so that wouldn't necessarily fit in with your needs or desires.

I am not sure I am following your thought process regarding the wealthy and their responsibility to the non-rich. Maybe if I understood the parameters....where is the cut off?

Renee, begging your pardon, I feel that this idea is built on an untrue assumption:

That all people are equally capable of even dealing with labor, at the conceptual level.

We can dismiss this as 'laziness', or we can take a harder look at our one-size-fits-enough system and ask ourselves how likely it is that every human being is going to be prepared to play one particular game. I'll put my bias out front:

I, personally, cannot play this game. I despise this game, in fact.

My train of thought while I'm on the clock always devolves down to the same resounding thought: These people are taking my time and ridiculing me, and I am getting nothing of value in return (now, I'm not saying this is true - I'm saying that, regardless of it's untruth, this is the thought that rings through my head). I get gradually more apathetic or gradually more angry, depending on the environment, and after a year or so I simply stop coming-in. People get upset, I have financial problems, yadda yadda yadda. This is not a fun cycle.

Moreover, this is a terribly unhealthy cycle, both for myself and anyone who has the displeasure of working around me. When I was working for a pizza delivery call-centre, there were many occassions where I had the serious desire to render terrible harm to people out of frustration. If it's accurate to say that many people have a tipping point, I nearly hit mine.

So, imagine someone in my situation who has even just a little less patience / tolerance. They either go-out with a final grisly act like the fellow described in this article, or they decide 'fuck it' and join the always readily accessible organization of the criminal and the rest of their life becomes devoted to hurting people and being a cash drain (either directly through theft or slightly less directly by being locked-up in prison).

So, what can we do? Off the top of my head, I can think of three things:

We can beat our head against the tired old wall and say, 'Well, they should just go get jobs!' and watch this idealistic demand fail because people like myself are not interested in a job, and still others simply cannot (for one reason or another) find good, steady work.

We can (I insist) implement my suggestion of heavy euthanasia, culling-out population members who cannot / will not participate in the system or whom volutarily wish to be put down, and couple this with birth control to keep our population at a more managable population level.

We can have people who work and make income pool small portions of their income together to support those who refuse to / cannot work, so they do not become cancerous agents and retain something to lose. Again, I will not demand that anyone do this; I don't feel it's my right. It is, afterall, your money. However, hoarding what we percieve to be our own personal treasure-troves and rejecting realistic facts will not create safe or stable systems.

What makes you think someone would just be "culled? " If a society was going to be that cold, and I was in that situation I'd just try to take out as many members of that society as I could in as grisly way as possible before they took me out.

Well, I can't honestly say that I know for sure that there is no work I enjoy; I can say that I certainly do not enjoy a traditional Boss -> Subordinate -> Workers environment where I'm 'on the clock'.

I'm mellow. I like to relax, read, explore, wander, etc. Telling me that you just arbitrarily need something done within a certain timeframe, or that you really need so see my 'numbers' up at a certain level within a certain timeframe only makes me angry. If you want to rush, fine; but don't fucking drag me into it.

Of course, the problem with that attitude is that everyone wants to rush. It's a big part of the game. So, if you're not into that, you can't play (I'm not criticizing the system; I'm just saying, that's the way it happens to work).

And, yes. I'd certainly be one of the people to be euthanized.

Matt: Don't be so dramatic. Would it be so terrible? They sit you down on a comfortable chair in a room with a few other people, perhaps put on some music, and slowly cycle-out the oxygen in favor of nitrogen. You'd drift-off to sleep and be dead without even knowing that you were going-under.

We think it would be awful because of:

A) Our bias that puts such a weighted value on the lives of our own species.

B) Cultural memes propagating the idea that life is sacred.

People would still be kind to each other, the sun would still rise in the morning, children would still watch the Power Rangers beat-up monsters every Saturday morning. In addition to that, we would just finally have accepted our mortality by acknowleding that shuffling-off of the mortal coil is not such a big deal.

To be honest, I'd kill thousands, millions, even billions of people before I'd subject myself to working at McDonalds. If I had the choice between working at McDonalds and destroying the entire universe.... I wouldn't be working at McDonalds. I see it as I need so much and if I can't get it in a way I find acceptable you better give it to me or I'll take it from you, and you might not survive. I'd rob and kill and maybe go even further to intimidate future people to cooperate - that includes disfiguration (to the point of cutting off arms and legs) and rape. Realistically, I'd probably just kill myself before it got to that point, but maybe I might decide to teach the rich a lesson?

Yes, I hate the rich and if the revolution ever comes I'd gladly give my life to take a few rich fucks with me.

Here are a couple of .pdf study links with content I found interesting...

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070417.jobs.pdf

In the above study, tables include: Job Satisfaction and General Happiness by Occupational Prestige, Top and Bottom (12) Occupations in Job Satisfaction and Top and Bottom Occupations in General Happiness.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/07/pdf/070827.jobs.pdf

This study includes socio-demographic reciprocal relations. Tables include: Trends in Job Satisfaction, 1972-2006 and Satisfaction by Socio-Demographics.

Neither study is what one might call exhaustive, but they are informative. Several other studies I found were only available if you were a member of their website.

Matt, that's not realistic at all.  Success is not at least 99% due to luck.  People put very hard work into earning their degrees, finding good jobs or otherwise making themselves successful by their own standards.  Please, just because you are in an unfortunate position, do not cheapen the very hard work that others put into their lives by attributing their success relative to yours to 'luck', it's insulting and makes you look pathetic.