Brand Names

The poorest people in our society are the most likely to buy brand name products, hence they are poor.

A recent article on CNN states the obvious - the smarter you are, the more likely you are to buy a generic equivalent product than a "brand name" one.  The savings are not trivial - brand name products can cost 2-4 times as much as a generic version of the same product.

We have a Dollar Tree store next door to our grocery store.   Everything there is a dollar.   In many cases, you can buy products for a dollar there that are selling for $4 to $6 next door at the grocery store.   In most cases, the quality of the products is equivalent.

Why are people brand-conscious and brand-loyal?   There may be more than one reason.   In the past, before the Pure Food and Drug act was passed (all that "unnecessary government regulation" and all) many products offered on the market were substandard or even dangerous or poisonous.  A brand-name was the indication of quality and consistency.   And perhaps many older consumers, born into an era of questionable goods, still rely on brand-names.

But then again, back then, brand-name products didn't cost 2-4 times as much as generic ones.

My Mother, for example, had certain brand-name preferences all of her life.  She always bought Tide detergent, Land-O-Lakes lightly salted butter, and Birdseye frozen vegetables (a gourmet, she was not).  She was an educated person and fairly wealthy, but nevertheless relied on brand-names when shopping.

Of course, back then, in the 1960's, brand-name products weren't so staggeringly expensive, and the selection and availability of off-brand products was usually limited to a store brand, if that.   In the tiny grocery store in our home town, the choices, if there were any, were between two brand-names.

So maybe that accounts for one portion of the brand-name buying public - consumers who are older and grew up in the era of brand-names.   But that is a dying market segment.

When I am at the grocery store, what I see, however, is that the folks buying "brand name" products are often the poorest or lower-middle-class people.  This is a switch from when I was a kid.  When I was a kid, the only time I saw "store brand" products was when I was at a poor friend's house (poor people were a little smarter back then, I think - or had less gub-ment money to spend).

Today, poor folks buy brands, and I think the reason is status in part, and ignorance in another.

I recalled the story of our shopping trip to the wholesale club, many years ago, where two very overweight "white trash trailer park" girls were shopping ahead of us, lazily dragging whatever product they wanted off the shelf and tossing it in the car ahead of them, without looking at the price.   One of them commented to the other that maybe she should check the price on the paper towels she just bought (after seeing us agonize over the same buying decision).  Her friends' response was, "Honey, I just buy whatever I want, and HE has to pay for it!" - signs of a marriage that truly is a "race to the bottom".

So laziness is another reason, perhaps, that some folks buy brand names.

I can say that when I was younger (and poorer) I often did the same thing.   Even though I was a technician making less than $17,000 a year (and struggling to pay the bills) I bought brand-name products and thought nothing of it.  Part of this was training from my parents (buying Tide and Land-O-Lakes, because that was what I was exposed to) and part of it was status.  Yes, people really think that way - I know I did - thinking to themselves, "I can afford the 'real deal' unlike those poor folks!"

Yes, status rears its ugly head.   We rarely shopped in Wal-Mart prior to 2009, and frankly would joke about people who would buy FOOD there.  I mean, gross!  And at the Dollar Tree?  Disgusting!  That was the attitude we had, but attitudes can change. 

I recounted about my friend who spent all their money on leased cars and an unfortunate motorhome purchase, and ended up broke in retirement, at age 70.  Even trying to "get by" on Social Security, they still bought "brand name" groceries (and booze) at the upscale supermarket, rather than spend half as much at Wal-Mart or the Dollar Tree.  When they asked me for financial advice (read: money) I went through their budget and suggested they look for savings there.  "I would never shop at Wal-Mart!" they replied, "I have my standards!"

In America, apparently beggars can be choosers.

I've said it again and again in this blog - if you want to get ahead in America, it ain't hard to do.  You just have to act rationally in an irrational world.  Let the other guy squander his dough - don't get caught up in the status race - because it is a race that no one "wins" other than the marketers.

Poor folks are poor not because of "circumstance" or "luck" but because they make poor financial decisions in every sense of the word.

Think about it for a moment.  Where do they sell the most coveted brand-name products?  In the ghetto.   When kids were shooting each other over brand-name Nike(tm) Air Jordan(tm) sneakers, it wasn't at the prep school for rich kids (who wore loafers that cost half as much) but in the ghetto high schools.   

And this whole obsession about Tide Detergent?  Yea, in the ghetto.

Beats headphones?  Ditto.

This is not to say that all poor people are fools and idiots.   When you shop at Wal-Mart or the Dollar Tree, you see a lot of the working poor, and many of them are conscious shoppers, who stretch their dollars the furthest and are trying to get ahead.   On the other hand, many of them are just "shopping" in the sense of buying crap they don't need or want, and thus are squandering money.  And yes, Wal-Mart has lots of "brand name" products - sometimes crowding out the store brands (and that's not by accident, either).

But while the poor account for a big chunk of status-seeking brand-name purchasing behavior (or purchasing by laziness or ignorance) I think the largest single chunk is the "Status Seekers" - the people of the middle-class who are trying to achieve status through purchasing.  People who define themselves by the brands they swear loyalty to.

The very poor buy generic, often because they are forced to do so by means of a limited budget.  The wealthy buy whatever is the best bargain, and that is why they became wealthy and stay wealthy.   The clueless middle class believes that if they buy the right products, they will be "rich" because being rich, to them, is all about consumption (and spending money) and not about accumulating money (owning money).

For me, this is no longer an issue.  Brand names mean little or nothing to me anymore - particularly in today's world where a reliable brand-name company can be strip-mined by the likes of Mitt Romney and the quality of the product plummets overnight.   When you buy a car, relying on the "J.D. Powers Report" of quality is sort of foolish.  Even if the data were valid (which it often isn't - initial quality is rarely an indicator of long-term value) the car you buy today may be made by a company far different than the that made the same car a year or two ago.

And of course, many "generic" products today are made in the same factories and same assembly lines as the "brand name" products are made.   Brands are meaning less and less these days, as companies dilute their value (e.g., piss in the soup) by slapping brands on any product that comes down the pike.  For example, until recently, Volkswagen sold Chrysler Minivans (the Routan) re-badged as Volkswagens.  What does that say about the VW "Brand"?   VW is not alone, of course - all the automakers have been swapping cars and parts with each other for decades.  The idea of being "brand loyal" is something only simpletons can embrace (e.g., NASCAR fans).

THIS IS NOT TO SAY that generic brands are always better, or that you should always buy a generic or store-brand.  Buy the best value for the money.  For example, Dollar Tree laundry soap is a little on the watery side.  It is one "value" that I don't find at that store.   I do buy it, on occasion, when renting a house for a week or something.  But for regular use, we buy the large buckets or boxes of powdered detergent at the wholesale club - Arm&Hammer or Kirkland brand.  However, I could care less about the brand.   If I found another brand that worked as well and was cheaper, I'd buy it.

Brands should be an indicia of quality, and at least, that is how they started out, with Trademarks indicating the "source of goods or services".  However, today, brands are often just window-dressing - licensed marks that are leased out and tacked on to whatever goods the marketer thinks will be enhanced by the use of the brand.  Rarely, today, is a "brand-name" an indicia of quality or consistency of any goods or services.

And in fact, some brands can have reverse indicia.  Radio Shack, for example, has always sort of been a negative brand.  If you had a "Realistic" brand stereo system from Radio Shack, back in the day, it meant you were either kind of dumb, or couldn't afford a Sansui or whatever.   Radio Shack branded items were not an indication of quality.

And some companies have taken their brands and "dumbed them down" to the point where they have little value.  Campbell's Soup had arguably the most recognizable brand image, after Andy Warhol put their soup cans into art museums.   But today, the brand is struggling and it is not hard to see why.   Their products are viewed as retrograde, unimaginative, and even unhealthy.   We recently bought a jar of "Campbell's" salsa, and it was more like tomato soup - unimaginative, runny, and flavorless.  If you want good salsa, you have to look for the freshly made variety (in the refrigerated case) or often for off-beat brands from small companies and artisans.

Anti-branding is the new branding.   The micro-brewery movement is a case in point (no pun intended).   You can find some really good beers at a micro-brewery (or sold under their name at the local store).   You may have never heard of them, and you may never be able to find the same brand twice.  But the experience is going to be a lot better than a suitcase full of brand-name Miller Lite.

Our generation seems quite into this, trying to seek the offbeat and untried - looking for hidden values and product that say, "I'm special" or "I have discriminating tastes".  And of course, our corporate overlords are well aware of this - often buying up offbeat brands and then making them bland and generic (which most people really want anyway).    When Sam Adams made a "lite" beer, you knew it wasn't a micro-brew anymore.

They also manufacture brands that sound offbeat or like small-startup companies.   Movie studios all have "independent" brands (how independent is that, really?) and Hallmark has "Shoebox Greetings" which we are told is a "tiny division" of the company (really?  How dumb do they think we are?).

So even anti-branding has its branding.

Thus, I think the thing is, to ignore brand, other than as a means of finding the same product twice, and look for value - in terms of quality and price.   But that seems a fairly obvious statement, right?

Like I said, it ain't hard to get ahead in this country.  Act rationally in an irrational world.

All the Lonely People...

There are a lot of lonely people in the world.  They make excellent consumers.

I noted in an earlier posting about a person I met who was in the medical profession and making over $100,000 a year.  They were about my age, but had nothing saved for retirement, no house, no nothing.  But they had designer clothes, a new car every three years, and bought all the latest trendy crap.

And they lived alone.

I know a lot of folks who are "loners" - who never marry or even have a partner or "significant other" or whatever, for their entire lives.   There is nothing wrong with that, of course.  But it struck me that one common denominator that all of these folks had was that they spent nearly every dollar they had on status crap like smart phones and fancy cars, designer clothes and designer coffees - and $150 haircuts.

It is interesting, but such folks find their sense of worth in their possessions and purchases.  And they are the first to point out to me how lame and out-of-date my clothes, hair (which I cut myself) and cell phone is - as if these were important things in life.   Perhaps it scares them that someone could find happiness in things other than the material.

But I think it is something else - and something hard to describe.  Their sense of self-worth is not from a relationship with another, but in their material goods.  And they can congratulate themselves for being "better" than others by having the latest stylish stuff.   Those poor married folks!  Driving a five-year old car and wearing frumpy clothes.  What are they thinking?

If you are single and the kind of person who will remain single your whole life, there is nothing wrong with that lifestyle.   But watch out, there is a "singles trap" - drowning the deafening silence in life with consumerism.

Is a Job a Means to an End or an End in and of Itself?

This is not life.  This is a way to make a living.  There is a difference.

I was recently interviewed by a young associate with the Wall Street Journal Online, who was trying to put together an article about people who chucked the rat race for something simpler in life.  It was an interesting interview as she was wondering whether I had any regrets about giving up status items in exchange for owning my own life.  I told her no.

I also mentioned that many folks in this country get caught up in "Jobs" which they tend to view as an end in and of themselves, rather than a means to an end.   What do I mean by this?

Well, for a very few of us, a career is the centerpiece of our lives.  Famous doctors and lawyers and craftsman and businesspeople, live to work, it seems, and can't imagine doing anything else.  Some become very rich, while others would work for free, if they could afford to, as they care less about money than their life's work.   Sadly, few of us have this desire or option in life.

Most of us work at "Jobs" that are little more than a paycheck - a means of survival.   We work because we have to, because we need the money.  Yes, work becomes a social outlet and an identity.  But few of us love our work or view it as our life's passion.  Not many of us will become famous for what we do for a living - the vast majority of us are unknown and forgotten clerks or laborers, who will not be remembered in history.

And that's OK, too.   The world is structured that way, and there is little point in fighting it.

In my field, this is also true.  There are few, if any, famous Patent Attorneys.  Outside of our own little circle, name recognition doesn't carry very far.  There are no Clarence Darrows in the Patent Business, just a few Attorneys who might have brief fame or run a big firm, and then fade into the night.   And I know this, because I've worked for these folks, and seen their names chiseled off the door of the firm, as soon as they are cold in the ground.

So for me, the idea of becoming a "famous Patent Attorney" seemed like an oxymoron.  Moreover, I knew my own abilities and while I can draft a pretty good Patent Application, I was not cut out to be a courtroom litigator.  Few are - and most Patent cases are settled on the eve of trial.  A Patent litigator can go an entire career without ever addressing a jury.

While I have enjoyed my work, I think of it as a job.  It is enjoyable enough not to be boring and just obnoxious enough to make me realize it is work - and that someday I hope to stop doing it.  Someday soon.

And that someday comes for all of us, eventually - at least the working Joes and Janes that make up 95% of the U.S Population.   Not all of us can be Frank Lloyd Wright, working until their last breath.  The rest of us have to retire - or have retirement thrust upon us - and thus have to live off our life's savings.

And this is not such a bad thing - being retired and goofing off.   Yet many folks cannot fathom it, or are uncomfortable "doing nothing" all day.   Hard to believe.

The point of  my comment to the young WSJ reporter is that the working stiff should never lose sight of the fact that a job is a means to an end - to accumulate wealth, not dissipate it.  But most folks chose to do the latter.

The average "working stiff" in America complains about "living paycheck to paycheck" while at the same time accumulating luxury goods and services, all paid for in monthly installments.  Smart phones, designer coffees, cable television, leased cars, oversized houses - all paid for with credit.  The working stiff views their financial health in terms of borrowing ability.  They worship their credit score, which is a false God, instead of their net worth.

In never ceases to amaze me how some folks who are ostensibly "poor" or "lower middle class" can end up accumulating lots of crap - cars, boats, motorhomes, jet skis, and the like.  But the secret is really no secret.  They live in a hovel that is worth less than the cost of the motorized vehicles parked in front of it.  And everything is paid for with credit, often at onerous interest rates, and they are in debt up to their eyeballs.  But hey, they have a nice new toy tractor, right?  It is not hard to buy expensive crap.  All it takes is a W-2 and the willingness to go into debt.

Almost worse than the financial aspects of a "Job" are the social ones, and often one ties into the other.  Many folks turn their place of employment into a social circle, and thus not content to spend eight hours a day with other cubicle-dwellers, spend their social time with them as well.   Sadly, this leads to competition among fellow employees, and suddenly, leasing a new Acura seems like a sound proposition.  People tend to emulate those around them, and look for normative cues on how to behave.  And often the normative cues you get at work are the worst sort.   I never met a boss who was unhappy when his employees went into debt.   An indebted employee is a reliable employee - and unlikely to leave the company and start a competing business.

Of course, these are choices we make in life.  And many folks are very happy, it seems, to be in perpetual debt.  Many are satisfied with a social circle that is mostly friends from work.  Many are happy to work at a job they "hate" as they fear trying anything else (and live in fear of losing their hated "job" because of their horrendous debt-load).

However, owning yourself is a very liberating experience.  And once you own yourself, you are in a position to do what you want to do with life - be it goofing off, or starting your own business.  If you read the biographies of famous people, you will notice that many of them save up their money, rather than spend it, and thus are able to break out on their own.   You never read biographies of famous people who stayed at a crappy job so they can make payments on their Chevy.

I am not sure I am getting the point across here.  But the bottom line is that every penny you spend on junk that you think you have to have (but really don't) is a link forged in the chains of your own slavery.  You are enslaving yourself for a Starbucks, or a smart phone, or for cable TV.   It is a choice.

* *  *

Note:  There was a movie that came out a few years ago, called In Time, which was not well-received, although the premise was interesting.  In a dystopian future, time becomes the ultimate currency, with everything you buy paid for in terms of  your life expectancy (and money you earn expanding that life expectancy).  The rich can live forever, while the poor live very short lives.  In a way, this does mirror the life expectancies in reality today.

Sadly, the movie was a little overwrought (and starred Justin Timberlake) and thus did not do well.  Few saw it, including myself.  Maybe I'll rent it someday.

four minutes for a cup of coffee?

 I do like the one line in the movie, "Four Minutes for a cup of coffee?"   That is about the actual cost.  $5 on a cup of Designer Joe, every day, comes to $1825 a year.  Invested at even modest interest rates, over a working life, can add $100,000 to $200,000 to your IRA.  Yet how many people in line at Starbucks have little or nothing saved for retirement?

Four minutes may in fact be a bargain, compared to what we are paying today!  But of course, in the movie, just as in reality - no one makes the decision not to buy, do they?

Alcohol and Anxiety

Alcohol both relieves and heightens anxiety.

In school, we learned about the effects of caffeine on our bodies.  Caffeine, we are told, blocks receptors in the brain which normally receive chemicals that indicate fatigue.   These chemicals are necessary to tell the brain that the body is tired, and to slow down and get rest.   Caffeine, by blocking these receptors, allows the user to stay awake and alert longer.

The downside is, the brain grows new receptors, apparently, in response to caffeine use.  So, over time, the more coffee you drink, the less an effect it has on you.  So you drink more and more to get the same effect, turning into a "coffee fiend" over time.

Of course, the effects of coffee are deemed benign in our society, so there is no AA for Coffee drinkers.  Other mood-altering substances, such as nicotine, can be more harmful, particularly in their delivery systems.   But the key is, these are mood-altering drugs, even if the moods created are somewhat difficult to discern.

Alcohol, on the other hand, can have dramatic effects on behavior, so a problem with alcohol can be a major personal and social problem in short order.  And part of this problem is how alcohol affects anxiety.

People drink to relax.  In social situations, a drink can reduce anxiety and make it easier to "mix" with others.  At the end of a stressful day, a drink can relax the mind and body.

But what if alcohol has the same effect as caffeine?   In particular, it seems that alcohol does relieve anxiety.   But in response, the brain cranks up whatever chemicals produce anxiety, causing a spiral of increasing consumption over time.

Anxiety, like fatigue, has a positive survival effect on the brain.   Fatigue tells us we need to sleep and rest.  Anxiety tells us we need to think about things and make sure tasks are completed.   Excessive anxiety, however, can literally drive you crazy, causing your brain to reel and surge, like a car stuck in neutral with the engine gunning.   Anxiety disrupts sleep patterns, causes people to behave irrationally, and causes social avoidance.

And when you consume alcohol, well, it does relieve anxiety - perhaps too much so.   We start to think, while intoxicated, that we are witty and funny and can sing Karaoke.  Some think they can drive when they shouldn't.   Some get belligerent and think they can take on the whole bar.  Total release from Anxiety, even if temporary, can have very negative side effects.

Alcohol temporarily relieves anxiety, but then pays it back double, in terms of increased anxiety, once its effects wear off.  So the user drinks more to relieve the increased anxiety, and so on, in a spiral of increased consumption.  Before long, well, you've become an alcoholic.

Addiction works this way - providing a temporary relief from life's stresses and difficulties, but then paying them back double.   The addicted gambler lives for the thrill of a win, but his continued losses push him to gamble more and more.   

Most people talk about "physical addiction" in terms of drug users - as if the user would die or something if they didn't have the drug.  However, I wonder if the same effect is in place - the drug relieving one emotional temporarily, and then increasing the level of the same emotion when the drug wears off.   Alcoholics complain about the "DT's" or hallucinations when they stop drinking.  I wonder if these are not just extreme manifestations of anxiety.

My Mother drank to excess, and I think this was to relieve anxiety.  She had a lot to be anxious about.   But over time, the original anxiety was replaced with alcohol-induced anxiety - an unfocused general fear of the world and generic worry.  She would stay awake all night long, and then sleep until late in the morning.  Worry consumed her.  And when drunk, that anxiety would release, causing her to enter these argumentative fugue states.   Drunks become argumentative because without anxiety, they are convinced they are right about everything.

Alcohol is quite prevalent in our culture, society, and history.   Granted, there are a few religious sects who shun the practice.   When you drink alcohol, it seems that these blue-noses are always trying to spoil all the fun by making you wait until 12:00 on Sunday to buy beer.   When you don't drink, it seems that the drinkers outnumber the non-drinkers by 10 to 1 (which they probably do) and most leisure activities, it seems, tend to focus on or center around, alcohol consumption.   It is a matter of perspective.

I started drinking around age 13 or so.  My parents would make cocktails for me as a teenager, convinced that it was a "rite of passage" or something.  My late Sister thought that her little brother would "mellow out" on Marijuana.   More than a decade later, I decided to quit both, as neither seemed to help my life very much.   Once off the drugs and alcohol, my confidence returned (that anxiety thing again) and I finished my Engineering degree and Law degree, got a good job with a law firm and even started my own law practice.

But over time, alcohol crept back into my life (it is a cultural thing in Japan, even moreso than in the USA) and I found my consumption increasing - along with unfocused anxiety.  In addition, it was causing or enhancing some severe health problems (Gout and Diverticulitis).  So I decided to give it up - again - and see what happens.  Already I can see I am sleeping better and have more self-confidence.   It is tempting to have that "relaxing cocktail" of course.  But I realize now that the relaxation offered by the cocktail is paid back by a double-dose of anxiety later on.

There are other effects as well.   At about 100 calories a serving, it is not hard to increase your caloric intake by 50% or more, just in alcohol.   Middle-aged men develop the "gut" due to alcohol consumption.

And then there is the cost.   Alcohol isn't cheap, and can easily equal 25-50% of your food budget.  When dining out, the cost of cocktails and a bottle of wine can easily exceed the food portion of the bill.   And let's not forget that those aforementioned health problems can be rather expensive as well.

People drink alcohol to relieve anxiety.  But instead, it is like throwing gasoline on the fire.  The more you consume, the more you need to consume, just to stay ahead.   I suspect that marijuana has the same effect, except that when stoned, anxiety can still be present (paranoia).

I suspect the fewer mood-altering substances you consume, the better off you are.

Children Having Children, Part Deux

When kids have kids, the Grandparents often have to suffer.

As I noted in my Teenagers Having Kids posting, one of the worst financial mistakes any young person can make (worse than student loans!) is having children unintentionally, early in life.  It is not only an 18-year sentence, but can affect your career, profession, and overall quality of life - forever.

However, I had not thought of the consequences to the Grandparents, until recently.  We were camping in Massachusetts recently, and across the way was a family from Canada. They were nice enough people and all, but were very loud and obnoxious and did things like cut through other people's sites and shout at each other all day long.  They were also kind of trashy.  I was kind of shocked, as the perception that Americans have of Canadians is that of people who are more restrained, politically correct, and well, smarter than Americans.  But Canadians have white trash, too.  You just don't see it as often.

Anyway, it seemed like a normal family - Mom, Dad, and two kids.  Mom was in her early 40's and Dad was a little older.  The daughter was about 21 and the son was about 4 years old.  The daughter did dress a little too slutty, but girls do that these days, I guess.  And the four-year-old was a howling brat, throwing temper tantrums right and left.

But I realized my perception of this family was wrong, when the daughter said to the boy, "You go stay with Grandma, Mom is going out with her friends!"  (I was not snooping, you see, because everything they said was at full volume and you heard it, whether or not you wanted to).

I realized that it was not Mom and Dad and two kids, but Mom, her new Boyfriend, the Daughter, and the daughter's out-of-wedlock son.   How Normal Rockwell.   We came back to our camper one day to find the daughter on the cell phone at our picnic table, moaning on about how the baby's father refuses to look for work, etc. and how Mom's new boyfriend was a pain in the butt.  So it filled out the picture.

What was sad was that Mom (the Grandma, not the daughter) had to bear the brunt of this all.  Daughter was still going out and partying and hanging out with boys (no doubt working on Baby #2) while "Mom" (Grandma) had to deal with the howling brat.  And like most modern parents, they tried to negotiate and reason with a four-year-old, with predictable results. The nightly tantrums were broadcast all over the campground, and every time, after an hour of howling, the "Parents" (Grandma and her new boyfriend) would back down and the four-year-old would win.   Another sociopath in the making.

It was hard to feel sorry for any of them, as they were an obnoxious "family" to be near.  However, in one unguarded moment, I saw the face of Grandma, and it showed all the fear, anxiety and sheer exhaustion and frustration in her life.  She had a child, and assumed that after 18 years or so, that child would leave home and move on.   But instead, her child had a child, lived at home, and left her to raise yet another child, while her daughter went out partying and having a good time.

Suddenly, I was no longer angry that this obnoxious family was so loud and difficult.  Their lives were a wreck, and their futures were all very sad and depressing.  Grandma had the worst of it, having to deal with the howling brat along with the verbal abuse from her own daughter.  What Grandma's boyfriend saw in all of this, I do not know.  I am guessing that is why he is in no hurry to marry Grandma.

And I wonder if Grandma thought that life would not end up this way.  Perhaps in another world, she would not yet be a grandmother, and her daughter, now 21, would be telling her about a "nice guy" she just met, who had a good job and career prospects.  Instead, she gave it up for 10 minutes of fun with a jerk with a cool car in high school, and the whole family has to pay now, for decades to come.

In another 14 years or so, the howling brat would be off to school or out of the house (hopefully), and Grandma will be off the hook.  Unless of course, slutty daughter hasn't popped out another one.  Oh, wait, sorry, I forgot - being a Mother makes you a saint, automatically.

What was really sad about this situation was that I could see no way out for Grandma.  She could toss her slutty daughter out of the house, along with the howling brat, but then who would raise the grandchild?   The daughter used this emotional blackmail to keep Grandma in line.  "Let me live in the house, rent-free and not work, and you take care of my brat," daughter says, "or I leave home and raise him in a crack-house!"

Part of the problem, of course, is that these folks were from Quebec (but spoke English, not French) and being from a Catholic country, so to speak, no doubt felt that contraception was a bad idea and sex-before-marriage just won't happen if you will it not to.  I wonder if Grandma has softened her stance on contraception since the brat popped out.

And this is not unexpected. Teenage pregnancy rates are highest among fundamentalist religious groups  - those who do not believe in birth control.    Just take a gander at the Palin family (before you look away in horror).   Children having children, and the grandparents end up raising them.

Of course, this is not to say that contraception is always the answer.  I knew a "progressive" family (read: drunks) when I grew up, and the Mother put her daughter on birth control as soon as she started menstruating.   She felt that she could not control her daughter and didn't want any "accidents".   On the other hand, this sort of message kind of backfired, as the daughter felt it was carte blanche to go out and have sex with as many boys as possible. And despite the use of birth control pills, she ended up married with one-on-the-way at 18, and divorced by 21. And despite how "progressive" her parents were, they were not happy that their daughter was knocked up so early in life.

I am not sure what the point of all of this is.  I guess 100 years ago, a girl would get pregnant at age 16 and that was pretty normal - as was living with your parents (with your husband, however).  Back then, a girl was expected to raise her children, not pawn them off on Grandma so she could attend a rave or go to the bars with boys.  I guess it is that latter part that has changed - adolescents and young people feel entitled these days to the party life, even though their life choices dictated otherwise. Student loans, children out of wedlock, why should it interfere with having a good time?

The real victim is, of course, the child.  It was hard to feel sorry for the howling 4-year-old brat, who thew fits every night (and rocks at our camper).  One wanted to smother him.  And no doubt, his later life will be difficult, as he discovers that society won't give him everything he wants, just because he threw a fit (I tried it, didn't work).  Like I said, sociopath in the making.  Which makes us all victims in the end.

So perhaps Grandma does have a choice - to enforce discipline on her daughter and grandson.  If daughter threatens to leave, so be it - the environment she will raise the kid in can't be any worse that the dysfunctional family unit he is in now.   But that's easy to say, and hard to do, of course.

All I can say is, I am sure glad I am not in that situation.  The haggard tired look on Grandma's face was enough to break your heart.  I wonder if she ever imagined that her life would end up like this.