the point of the article is how changes in the redemption value of recyclables are affecting those who depend such for an income. just to be clear, I have tremendous respect for the people who do what it takes to make a living, even (or especially) those go through other people's trash to make a living.
first 4 sentences of the article:
Francisco Morataya drives a vanload of empty bottles and cans to Victar Recycling Center in Echo Park every week or so to supplement his wages as an office janitor. The 61-year-old Eagle Rock resident had been making $200 per load, enough to pay his daughter's cellphone bill. But that was before a new state law tightened the redemption rules, making it harder for people at the economic fringes to scrape by. Now his take is only $50 to $60, Morataya said. "It's really bad," he said this week, flinging plastic bottles into a garbage bin. "I can't help my daughter."
in this case, the daughter's phone bill should not be $200/mo. and the father should not be feeling bad that he cannot help her out with the bill. he should be feeling bad that he did not instill into his daughter values of frugality (i.e. the bill should not be $200/mo) and responsibility (pay your own way).
finally, it is incredulous to me that the mainstream media has reached a point where people are expected to feel bad for a population that continuously overspends irresponsibly, yet expect other people to foot the bill for such irresponsibility.
these days, a lot of articles attempt to use some sob story to demonstrate how some change is causing hardships for a particular family. most of them fall long these lines-- that the featured families have been living irresponsibly, and now they can no longer do so. my question is, why are there not more stories highlighting such irresponsibility?
