"Roseanne" lost me at the start in the '80s. The pilot included a teacher calling in the titular blue-collar everywoman to express concern about odd behavior by younger daughter Darlene. The remembered response of the self-proclaimed Domestic Goddess was anger at being called from work for something short of death. Either that episode or another early one had one of the three kids come to Mom for support only to have her repeatedly ask why they expected that she would care. These two scenes are neither humor nor class commentary; they are cruel.
The purpose of this post is to share that "Roseanne" 2.0 tells only part of the story. It presumably follows the pattern of the "classic" seasons in making "rich" people seem foolish and/or unreasonable.
Two truths are that most "haves" have far less in the 2000s than in the '80s and '90s and that this supposedly privileged elite is increasingly under unfair fire from the reel and real worlds. I recently expressed this to a friend, who has a graduate degree in a highly specialized field and has been a cater waiter for roughly ten years, as "the 21st century sucks." He agreed.
This same friend cited a 2010 article that stated that most Americans would need to reduce their standard of living by 30 percent. That is the direction in which most of us are headed.
The big picture relates to an issue from the 2008 presidential campaign. Then-candidate Obama based his proposed economic policies on classifying people with annual incomes of $200,000 as wealthy. An economics professor proved that, although that income provided a good standard of life, someone earning that much hardly was living large.
Your not-so-humble reviewer has never earned close to $200,000; a related note is that I am significantly worse off in 2018 than in 2008. I am more fortunate than the Conners in that I can afford my needs and some wants; however, "Roseanne" falsely presents to the world that you either are one paycheck away from poverty or light cigars with $20 bills. I and most others are closer to her end of the spectrum than folks (such as the real Roseanne) who literally or figuratively have money to burn.
Further, the recent concept of "white people problems" has exasperated this situation. Bad or abusive service is less serious than homelessness but is a valid basis for unhappiness. Going to Target should not trigger intense (and very loud) verbal abuse merely for correctly showing an error at the checkout counter. One can easily imagine reel Roseanne working the register and gleefully letting loose while her peers applaud.
The literal insult to the injury that "Roseanne" also perpetuates is the acceptability of mistreating someone based on being fortunate enough to have some money in the bank. Sharing even a small fraction of such incidents would fill pages. This is not to mention the at least monthly basis on which I overhear store employees use the term "rich people" in the same tone that many of us use to refer to Nazis. An amusing aspect of this is certainty that the Kennedys, the Kardashians, and the Trumps doe not shop at my local grocery store.
An incident that one might actually see from the opposite perspective in "Roseanne" occurred at a gas station in a middle-class community. I was coasting between the convenience store and the pumps when two blue-collar guys walked right in front of my car without looking. I did not honk or make a well-deserved gesture.
The guys walked into the store, and I went to the pumps. I must have displeased the gods because the payment system at the pump was broken. I almost left but was running late.
The following is a verbatim exchange with one of these guys when I went into the store to pay. Please remember that I simply wanted to buy gas.
"Why did you almost run us down?"
"I did not almost run you down, Sir. You stepped in front of my car."
"Don't call me Sir. I work for a living."
This man then muttered "Fag" as he left. This remark was merely based on my wearing my almost daily outfit of a button-down cotton shirt and clean Levis. The store clerk was polite enough to apologize.
One online reference to the new "Roseanne" also hit home; noting that Roseanne and husband Dan share prescriptions because their pricey bare-bones insurance does not allow them to afford separate medications. The big picture this time is consistent reports that even people in traditional employment situations make large contributions to low-coverage and high-deductible plans.
The personal experience regarding this is paying a $550/month premium for a plan with a $4,900 deductible and horrible coverage. Not going to the doctor for things such as three separate cases of the flu and a single occurrence of a badly sprained foot has escalated to not following the prescribed course for an ongoing condition. Related expenses that are unknown until the bill arrives and fights with the insurance company are not worth it.
The light treading that this delicate topic requires includes explicitly communicating understanding the pain of folks who barely get by. I fully acknowledge that cutting way back on "wants" is much less of a sacrifice then facing a threat of losing a home. Further, I would never want to work as a store clerk or a restaurant employee.
Additionally, being a customer in even a high-end store does not justify rudeness. The other side of the coin is that employees in businesses across the board increasingly seem to be named Tommy in that they apparently are deaf, dumb, and blind regarding reasonable and polite requests for help. These folks are asked to remember that most customers are not abusive.
The purpose of this article is to point out that the grass is not much greener on the "rich" side of town and that being a "have" should not justify treating someone badly.
Anyone with civil questions or comments regarding this post is welcome to email me. You also can connect on Twitter via @tvdvdguy.
No comments:
Post a Comment