On Feb 20, 1:08*pm, (Cynic) wrote:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2012 14:40:34 -0800 (PST), Ste
wrote:

I'm not really sure what relevance this has to my position on the
matter. I must say I wouldn't be too keen in general to make use of
second-hand cookers and microwaves - the reason such second-hand goods
are cheap relative to new, is precisely because nobody wants them and
because they lack the quality (typically, in terms of appearance) of
new goods.

Rubbish! *I have bought most of my appliances second-hand and have
been very pleased with almost all of them. *Obviously you have to pick
and choose and wait for the bargains.

And where exactly do you do this picking, choosing, and waiting? The
only place I know of locally is a council-run 'recycling' outfit,
which many people are indeed now using - not least landlords of
furnished properties. Nevertheless, as I've said you can't be expected
to "wait" that long for essential household appliances like cookers
and washing machines - you have to pay the going rate in the end.



*There are many reasons why
people want to get rid of perfectly good appliances. *A common reason
is that they were given a new appliance as a gift (Christmas, birthday
etc.). *Another is that they are rich enough to afford to buy the
latest appliances each year. *Or perhaps they decided to replace a
unit with a bigger or smaller model. *Or were conned into buying an
appliance that is more "green" than the one they had. *People moving
house often sell their appliances and get new stuff for the new house
- and in that case they are frequently "free to collector" because the
person is really only looking for a free removal service.

I would say the primary reason above all for getting rid of appliances
that I know of, is that they are faulty or that they are badly
defective in appearance.



*In other
cases a well-off householder had replaced a unit simply because it was
getting a bit grubby and it avoided a cleaning job.

Which is exactly what I said, that they are cheap usually because they
"lack quality in terms of appearance". That's not to say I don't know
anyone who has appliances of poor appearance - the point is that their
whole houses and even their person, typically reflect their lack of
concern with appearance. That is something that you seem to suggest
reflects badly on them, rather than being a reasonable response to the
unaffordability of keeping up appearances.



Nevertheless, I can think of several people who are making do with
second-hand kitchen appliances - in two such cases, I was called upon
to fit them purely out of the goodness of my heart (which I did not
begrudge).
In a further case, I was asked by the landlord of the property to
replace a cooker as a favour to him. When I did so, I found the wiring
of the old cooker in a dangerous state, and I indulged the boyfriend
of the tenant who was bragging that he had fitted the last one
himself; I return to my point about most people lacking the necessary
skills to fit appliances themselves.

The skills required are minimal.

They are relatively straightforward to show somebody, but doing the
work safely is not intuitive to an inexperienced operator. In the end,
I have to look at the evidence, which is that most people who are not
professionals, have just enough skills to be dangerous.



*If a person does not want to learn
some very simple skills, I put the blame squarely on that person.

That's ludicrous. Society is constantly telling people *not* to do
electrics, plumbing, and gas work themselves - for good reason,
because it is dangerous if done incorrectly by inexperienced
operators.

It is also the case that the poor typically lack the correct tools for
the job - which are not inordinately expensive, but would still
require expenditure. So you get them using improvised tools like
scissors and kitchen knives to strip cables that generally give a poor
result and which are liable to cause injuries to themselves in the
process - partly because the tools are unsuited to the purpose, and
partly because they simply lack the everyday familiarity and skill
with manual tools and are therefore prone to use the tools in ways
that experienced users would deprecate (either from painful
experience, or from cultural transmission of the painful experience of
others).



besides, a cooker is about the only appliance that requires any sort
of skills at all - unless you count plugging a unit into the mains
socket a skill.

Cookers and washing machines are the most basic and irreducible of
kitchen appliances in today's society, and they are the appliances
that require the most skill. Even fitting a washing machine, will
often in practice require several tools and supplies.



Don't be such a drama queen. =A0It's all part and parcel of preparing to
live in a new home.
Cynic, exactly what class of people do you have in mind here? The
sorts of people I have in mind, are being forced to move around
involuntarily, and they are typically families who have been in long-
term receipt of benefits.

Why should they be forced to move around involuntarily? *I know
several families with all members on long-term benefits and was in
fact thinking of them when I wrote my post. *The state pays for their
rent in very reasonable houses that they have lived in for well over a
decade. *Apart from moving to more suitable accomodation due to a
change in the size of the *family, or moving at the request of the
benefit receiptient themself, the main reason for being shunted from
place to place is if the family cause a nuisance wto their neighbours.

Indeed, and that is a particular cause of involuntarily moving
address. I know others who have moved because of harassment from
creditors, the law, etc.

And the reality is, if you have a particularly difficult or high-
energy child to raise, it's often the case that poor parents have no
ability or inclination to manage that. A lot of mothers in that sort
of situation genuinely despair of their children's behaviour (often
because it does have real consequences, like frequent changes of
address), but at the same time are loath to generate poor relations
within the family purely for the benefit of those outside the family -
in other words, whilst they might not always condone the behaviour,
they're not going to incur the psychological and relational stress
involved in effective discipline (which might be a very significant
undertaking when you have few rewards available to offer for better
behaviour, and no ability to spend money in order to change
circumstances or provide alternative leisure pursuits for the child),
when in contrast to those 'costs' the family itself will derive no
great benefits from the discipline (which mainly accrues to the
community at large). You're effectively expecing parents to become
prison warders of their own children, in a system in which they
themselves feel like inmates.



=A0A basic microwave (if necessary borrowed from
friends or family)
How many people do you know who have spare cookers or microwaves just
lying around? I'm clean and creditworthy amongst my friends, and I'm
not sure any of them could easily spare me a microwave or cooker.

Not even for a week or two to tide you over?

What I'm saying is that it would basically involve the lender going
without the relevant appliance, since almost all people (including
myself) only have one such appliance.



*As said, you can cook
everything you need to eat with just a microwave and a kettle (I've
done it). *It's not ideal, but it is perfectly acceptable while you
source other appliances.

It depends what sort of other support you have, and how long it takes
to source the other appliances.



In
fact, it's more the case that I'd be called upon to spare one for
others, but I would be extremely reluctant to spare my relatively
expensive appliances to people who do not have the same standards of
cleanliness as I do (or security in their home, or honest social
circle, etc.), and it would be a pure act of charity which I'm sure
any reasonable person would be embarassed to grovel for.

Yes, I can see that the sort of people who are dirty and dishonest
might have a more difficult time getting favours from friends and
relatives than clean, decent honest people. *Now how are you going to
blame that on the nasty rish businessmen?

Yes, because as I've said cleanliness is a costly pretense to maintain
(and its a habit that is built up over a lifetime - not switched on
and off at will), and so is honesty. There's no point being
scrupulously clean and honest simply in order to gain charity from
friends and relatives, if the cost of the cleanliness and honesty
outweighs the reputational benefits. And in communities that are poor
as a whole, there are going to be relatively few people in a position
to give - there's no point having excellent creditworthiness, amongst
friends who have no credit to offer.



I really do think you're living in a completely different world to the
one I live in Cynic. At the very least, you don't seem to be facing up
to the reality of life in poor *communities*, where it's not just a
case of isolated individuals suffering temporary hard times who can
survive for a while on the charity and goodwill of those who are
comfortable, but where the balance of those who are quite comfortable
in a social group is far too little to possibly subsidise all those
who are not, and where those who are not comfortable will, given the
general trends in society, probably become more uncomfortable with
time rather than less.

Ste, I have actually *lived* in that situation, and so know *very*
well what I am talking about.

When exactly was this? And for how many *generations* had your family
lived in that 'situation'?



*Perhaps it is yourself who is placing
too much reliance on the veracity of hard-luck stories you have been
told.

Rubbish. None of what I am saying is second-hand. Some of the poor
characters I have in mind when giving accounts here, are no friends of
mine, and are actually the sorts of people who *cause problems* for
friends and relatives of mine, so it's laughable the idea that I'm
just swallowing what I'm being given to swallow.



Whilst I am relatively well off now, I know quite a few people
of all ages who are out of work and have no assets. *i know *very*
well what's possible and what's not.

And what *are* you contending is possible? If we take the example of
how you contend it is "possible" to feed one's self in a kitchen to
contain only a kettle and a microwave, is quite a different question
from whether it is reasonable to expect it as a matter of routine in
our society. It is "possible" to feed children on flour and banana
skins - but it is not reasonable to do so for any significant period
in a society where the physical and mental effects of doing so would
put them at a significant disadvantage and will make them less
socially useful; a stunted idiot is no use to himself or anybody
else.

So far as it is "possible" to live in poverty for generations, and
maintain the same cleanliness, honesty and moral uprightness, optimism
and cheeriness of the 'middle class', I'm not sure I can think of any
examples of this. Even if such characters exist, their sheer rarity
may well prove my rule that it is not possible to maintain those
behavioural traits under the conditions of extreme poverty and the
exclusion from the normal culture of society that comes with it.



is sufficient to make meals, and the local
laundromat or mummy will clean your clothes - or wash them in the bath
as people used to do if you're really stuck.
So we go back to what I said earlier, about the everyday life of the
poor being actually quite a bit more strenuous and demanding (at least
if they follow your prescriptions), but simultaneously less rewarding.
Even within your own terms Cynic, if a certain behaviour is harder and
less rewarding, you must surely agree it is less likely to be
exhibited.

I was discussing the *temporary* situation after the person has just
moved in to a new unfurnished home. *Yes, it will indeed be more
demanding during that time.

Which, given the upheaval of moving house, is probably going to be the
least reasonable time to impose such demands. Anyway, I don't think I
was saying that I'm aware of anybody having any particular problem in
being without a washing machine for a few days while they move house,
so you are not really addressing any relevant point with this
alternative interpretation - I quite reasonably assumed that what you
meant was that they should be washing their clothes in the bath as a
matter of routine, not as an exceptional stop-gap.



*Some people will sit on their arse, buy
some cheap cider and moan about how unfair everything is whilst not
bothering to wash the home or themselves properly, or even get out of
bed before noon. *Others will see it as a challenge and get stuck in
to improve the situation for themselves.

But failing to bargain for better social terms *won't* improve the
situation - it will actually get worse, the more people compete for
dwindling rewards.

And those with a bit of get-up-and-go are just as likely to become
organised criminals - I know many people with determination and
backbone, and the justice system intends to give them no leniency
whatever for trying to improve themselves. In fact, evidence of
significant rewards, is likely to attract stiffer punishment.

That's the problem in the end for people who talk about "getting stuck
in" - they end up having to say "but only within the rules", and then
that raises the question of who exactly had the greatest input into
those rules and why those rules should not be changed.



=A0You can indeed rent kitchen appliances instead of buying,
but it is not terrifically cost-effective IMO. =A0Renting electonic
goods such as TV and computers makes a bit more sense in order to
upgrade to the latest and greatest every year.
It probably is not cost effective, but it solves people's problems in
the short term, at the expense of long-term finances. Normally what
people do in the long-term, is start giving up their social and moral
pretenses in order to shed stressors and shed financial costs. So for
example, people stop paying the rent and do moonlight flits, etc.

I don't see "black" work as being immoral.

Neither do I, but in reality it is sanctioned if detected - and I
understand the new real-time PAYE system means that benefit claimants
who work are detected almost instantly.



*Nor smuggling for tax
evasion purposes. *Both are artificial crimes that have been created
due to the inadequacies of the state-imposed systems. *HB rent is paid
direct to the landlord, so there is no opportunity to avoid paying it.

HB is paid direct to the tenant in the first place now, and only after
a history of mis-spending the rent might it be paid direct to the
landlord. Also, people who move between work and benefits are in a
position at times to avoid paying the rent out of their own earnings.