No, you should have sold the Mercedes because you already had one other car, and two cars and their insurance and upkeep seems like an unnecessary luxury for two unemployed people on food stamps.
It's bad enough in Germany where nearly every employer expects "mobility" (i.e. driver's license+car), and that with our quite generous mass transit. US is definitely worse.
>Darlena Cunha is a former television producer turned stay-at-home mom to twin girls.
...maybe someone from the Boston area can chime in on the state of public transportation.
There are many people here in Minnesota who drive comparable distances to make less money. When you live in the sticks and the closest job is a gas station 30 miles away that pays minimum wage, you're pretty much screwed.
But I just moved back to Washington, and there's no way you could do without a car here. The busses only cover about half the city, and they're few and far between (and they only run until 10pm). I'm 10 minutes away from a grocery store by car, so walking is out of the question. Cities that aren't packed full of people don't have a reason to invest in their public transit systems, because the payoff isn't worth the cost (there's just too much space to cover for so few people).
Cars break down, cars are often needed for jobs and for interviews for jobs, and two adults looking for whatever they can get are going to want to keep two cars as a _necessity_ in a lot of places.
I absolutely understand how a family on food stamps could justify having two cars, especially when one is already paid off. They had jobs during this time, even (not that that changes anything):
> In just two months, we’d gone from making a combined $120,000 a year to making just $25,000 and leeching out funds to a mortgage we couldn’t afford.
Also, you would not be making payments on the car because, uh, you paid for it in cash with the money from selling the car.
I'm extrapolating from incomplete data, of course, but I feel the article's statement deserved far more analysis than the 1-sentence glossover it received.
More likely, it was something like a C230 Kompressor, which ran ~$30k new.
Besides, once they had that cash in hand, they'd no longer be eligible for food stamps (you need to prove you have no savings or assets). They'd either have to stop collecting food stamps and burn up the excess capital on groceries, or commit welfare fraud.
Being poor in America is rough. Regardless of the "but the poor still have cable TV!" argument, US culture (and the systems created by that culture) takes an almost punitive approach to poverty, where the poor are seen to deserve it and not be capable of making rational decisions.
> That’s how I found myself, one dreary day when my Honda wouldn’t start, in my husband’s Mercedes at the WIC office.
And unreliable transportation can contribute to losing your job, not being considered for a position because you got to the interview late, etc.
The author addresses that:
> And even if we had wanted to do that, here’s what people don’t understand: The reality of poverty can spring quickly while the psychological effects take longer to surface. When you lose a job, your first thought isn’t, “Oh my God, I’m poor. I’d better sell all my nice stuff!” It’s “I need another job. Now.” When you’re scrambling, you hang on to the things that work, that bring you some comfort. That Mercedes was the one reliable, trustworthy thing in our lives.
I think we all know that when you sell something you generally make pennies on the dollar for what it originally cost. And in a situation like hers you think a return to normalcy is right around the corner. I am sure they told themselves "We have to have two cars so we can go to interviews and take care of the kid, etc."
How do you know the car you just bought is reliable?
While you can dig up the reliability ratings and Consumer Reports reviews for a brand new vehicle, each used car has its own story and a host of potential problems to surface.
The economic details of the transaction are such that if you need to unload a used car, you're unlikely to get a very good deal for it, but of course when you buy one, you are expected to pay dealer's repair and upkeep costs as well as markup. Plus sales tax to the state. A few hundred dollars lost on accepting suboptimal offer when selling, a few hundred dollars overpaid to drive another used car off the dealer's lot, a few hundred dollars to the state, and we start talking about some real money wasted.
A crappier car? Heaven forbid. Payments? Not if you buy an appropriate car...
Also, you are being callous, two unemployed people on food stamps, with children, probably need two cars just as much as anybody. They were probably busting ass, continuously, to get a new job, that usually means driving around, a lot.
>> In just two months, we’d gone from making a combined $120,000 a year to making just $25,000 and leeching out funds to a mortgage we couldn’t afford.
There are many of us who settle for a cheap car instead of a Mercedes and put that saved money in a savings account for a sudden emergency like this.
If you don't have atleast 1 year or more of emergency funds, you shouldn't be buying luxury cars and homes and then expect to pass off the burden on taxpayers(many of whom are suffering themselves to make ends meet, renting instead of buying and not going for luxuries) when hard times fall on you.
The reality is, no matter how big your emergency fund is, Shit Happens. They weren't expecting a pregnancy, let alone with expensive, high-maintenance twins. They weren't expecting to lose their jobs. They weren't expecting to be stuck for more than one year looking for a job ("The days of unemployment turned into weeks, months, and, eventually, years."). Everyone has a guilty pleasure or two, and it's not always as obvious as a cheapo Mercedes (which is not a bad choice at all if you're looking at long term costs vs a cheap car). A $240k house is hardly "luxury" and may make more sense than renting in that area. Even if they had a 1 year emergency fund (a fairly rare thing to do in itself), they likely would have been back on food stamps anyway.
Sure, she could have sold both cars and possibly lose a job as a result. Sure, she could be homeless. Sure, she could do a lot of other really shitty things. I'm glad WIC helped her so she didn't have to give up everything. I only wish SNAP (food stamps) and WIC and other programs could help more people before they feel like they gave up everything they had and then some.
My husband and I both make six figures, we manage to save most of it with cheap rent and very little spent on necessities let alone luxuries, and we have Oh Shit savings for more than one year. But this kind of doomsday scenario is why we have yet to buy a house or a car (thankfully half decent public transit in the bay area) and having children requires us to make a leap of faith, assuming that most people like us do it all the time. The "pay rent and bills, food, and other necessities for a few years" fund doesn't look big enough even for one person accidents, let alone anything else...
If you find yourself in a situation where you blew through your emergency fund and you're still having problems making ends meet, I sincerely hope that you can find the help you need without judgment.
Even the person in the OP's Imgur picture? Everytime someone is given money, it's coming from someone else and not going to someone else who could be more deserving.
The root beer, no sympathy! Don't buy it with food stamps.
Whatever the explanation, it was paid off previous to this narrative, was reliable, and this is her justification for not selling it.
As user hacknat said, the amount of time and energy it takes to sell an older luxury car is not negligible.
I guess I'm just having a hard time garnering sympathy for someone who displays such conspicuous consumption especially without the financial means to really pull it off. Their previous behavior is a HUGE part of what's wrong with US culture.
I wouldn't argue that the purchase of the car was a good financial decision. As a side note, I don't think buying a C-class Mercedes is EVER a good financial decision. The reactions to this article (or that OP experienced in the narrative) are a testament to the success of Mercedes establishing themselves as a luxury brand even though they sell econo-box line vehicles (top post right now puts this pretty well; this is a symbol of wealth, not actually much of an asset).
I think the house was a worse decision, as it implies a longer confidence in earning potential; the car could have been paid off much more quickly, and we don't really know their earning power at the time of purchase (though I doubt it'd help the point of them being fiscally responsible).
I think a big part of this article is trying to cast an empathetic light on people that end up in tough financial situations BECAUSE of bad financial decision, despite having come from opportunity. When considered clearly, even those impoverished that did not come from opportunity could be saddled with the blame of 'bad financial decisions', but just have many more justifications (that are more easily empathized with) for making the decisions they did.
At some point or another, though, you are following the same mindset of the 'root beer police' in the line at the store, written about in the article. You are drawing a line saying 'you purchasing THAT is not responsible', and you feel justified in doing so because they are using public help.
That's sort of the debate at hand here. Is the use of public funds an invitation, or justification, for judgement from others on your consumption? I believe that it is; if you are going to take money from the government, one cost you suffer will be unyielding judgement from others on what you do or do not buy.
My point: not selling my old(er) Mercedes in lieu of taking food-stamps while I find another job might ACTUALLY be the best financial decision I can make, for a number of reasons. Whether or not I feel morally reprehensible about this is my own business, really; the assistance programs have their own requirements for eligibility and if I meet them, I meet them. Despite this, it is an invitation for judgement in the cultural climate in which we live, and that's just how that is.
Part of my reaction to this story is self-defense and fear. I live in the US and from birth we're inundated with narrative about how we should live and what we should strive for. The nice house, nice car, nice job... "Nice" being defined externally, always. If you don't want to slip into the pre-carved paths, you need to stay vigilant.
In a sense, shaming this story is a fight against that narrative. By buying into it, the author reenforced it and then suffered the consequences when reality struck. Situations like this are obviously very personal and it's hard to judge on an individual level but in aggregate what they have done is causing damage beyond their own life. Not just the public funds they're now using, but by perpetuating a culture that the author presents as not only acceptable but desirable.
From the car to the house to the journalism degree. No choice showed any foresight and unfortunately large swaths of our population are living this life everyday.
At some point very soon, all of this story is going to have to come to an end and I'm not sure what will replace it. I personally believe that having (and keeping) sharp technical skills, being entrepreneurial and keeping your costs well below your means provide an answer.
In short, it's going to be an interesting decade to come.
I disagree, however, that shaming the story is fighting against that narrative. Empathy for individual decisions does more to effect systemic change, if by no other mechanism than allowing you a clearer understanding of why those decisions were made.
Darlena and her husband making these decisions will not effect the system as a whole, and neither will vilifying them. Understanding why they did what they did, and educating others on how their decisions hurt them will effect change.
The 'this could happen to anyone' tone irks me as well, but in my experience, it is also quite human. The view from hindsight is remarkably clear. The OP was probably more aware than anyone as they opened themselves up to fragility with each financial decision. Unplanned pregnancies (that double in expense w/ twins), jobs in new towns, unexpected job losses, DO happen. When they do, you there is rarely a 'whoa, we've taken on too much debt, this is not sustainable' moment that you can just turn it around. Horse was out of the barn.
an interesting and related read posted further down this thread was a fantastic perspective (though I'm not sure if I agree with it entirely): http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/11/hipsters_on_food_stam...
"I hope other's can learn from our mistakes and learn to live below their means, because circumstances can change on a dime. Savings is critical, and looking back on things, we spent too much on frivolous consumer items like luxury vehicles."
If you think someone spending $30k on a car with a $120k income is bad, you probably don't want to hear about the folks buying those cars while making half that amount (or worse, leasing them).
Besides, they were pretty conservative with their home purchase. A $250k house on a $120k income is way more conservative than what a lot of people do these days. Just by virtue of the home price, I'd argue they were doing better than the typical Bay Area programmer, who might make $120k but face home prices 5-15 times their income.
Being "hard" to sell isn't an excuse. Real poor people sell any asset they can get their hands on.
As for the house, if they lived in any sort of metropolitan area, $250k is not extravagant. In fact, while their income was comfortably over double the median US household income, their house price was right at the median. The average American household leverages their income twice as much as this couple was.