Emily Bazelon has a piece at XX factor that strikes a chord with me: how hard it is to keep friends when your economic circumstances radically change. In 2001, when I lost my job and was dong a bunch of odd stuff to keep my finances together, I found it hard to hang out with my old friends from business school. Some of them just didn't understand that a Chinese food dinner with a couple of beers wasn't a discount treat, but an unaffordable luxury--and when they figured it out, offered to pay, which seemed like a quick route to life as a permanent sponge. Others didn't quite know what to say, and avoided me.
Some of them I avoided, because they had what seemed like a psychopathic need to view my straitened circumstances as my own fault, even though the broad unemployment rate was rising. They would ask me if I'd done X,Y, and Z--say, network, send resumes, try volunteering for what I wanted to do--and when I said yes, and that I'd also done A, B, and C, they got quite aggressively, visibly annoyed. It felt a little bit like being interrogated by a special prosecutor. As far as I could make out, they were trying to prove that what had happened to me couldn't possibly happen to them.
Nonetheless, I kept plenty of friends from business school, and other, flusher eras. And I did it all with four little words, which I practiced saying in a mirror for a while before I tried them on my friends. Those words were: "I can't afford it."
It's remarkably easy to keep those friendships, or at least the valuable ones, through a recession. Those were the people I told the obvious, which is that I didn't have any money. Then we did things that didn't involve money. Those were the people who offered suggestions, but took no offense if those suggestions weren't useful.
Of course, it's always hard when a friend or loved one is suffering. You will never say or do the perfect things you want to. The difference between the friends I kept, and the ones I lost, is that the ones I kept were trying--trying to take care of the friendship, and a friend in need.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
--and when they figured it out, offered to pay, which seemed like a quick route to life as a permanent sponge.
The thing is, what's the point of having money if you can't spend it on your friends? I was lucky enough to land a decent job out of college and found myself making far more money than my friends. What was the point of making all that money if I couldn't do what I wanted with whom I wanted? I'm more than happy to pick up the check if it means we don't have to go to the Olive Garden.
The other issue is - many people don't know how to look for jobs. For example, I had a friend who got laid off and wasn't having any luck finding a new job. I asked her - "You used to get calls and e-mails from head hunters, right?" "Yes", she said. "Well, why don't you send out a mass e-mail to them all and attach an updated resume?" "Oh, that's a good idea." Two weeks later, literally two weeks later, she had a new job.
I sh*t you not.
I have to agree with jmo, I had an 80-90% reduction in income for most of a year, but it really didn't change much for me with friends who make a lot more than me now. I've always had other friends who didn't make that much. I quietly volunteered to pay for things when I made more money, but I'm not at all embarassed to say out loud I can't afford something. Maybe it's an exurban Midwestern thing.
It may also be that you don't have the cognitive dissonance of being a cash-poor fusion of a Calvinist and an Objectivist. It would be like being a black Catholic member of the KKK.
I was just talking with my wife about that last night. It's very difficult for people of very different financial circumstances to be friends. People with money want to spend it. People without money can't keep up for long. What is a simple relaxing evening for one is a stressful budget buster for the other. If the problem persists, they drift apart.
jmo3, the problem is, picking up the check because you want to is one thing, picking it up because they can't is something quite different. Nobody wants to be a charity case. I notice your explanation is all about you and what you want. What about them?
Megan,
Since you like to cook, why didn't you just offer to make dinner for your friends if they helped out with the groceries and wine?
What about them?
They get a free meal - I really don't see what they would have to complain about. When our fortunes are reversed I would hope they would do the same for me.
But, I get what you're saying. If it's two guys going out, or a group of guys, that's one thing. If it's two couples and only one guy can pay the other guy would be humiliated. I would never do that in a two couple scenario.
At the cost of their pride and dignity? That's hardly free.
If your pride and dignity is based on not accepting an expensive meal paid for by friends when you can't afford it, I'd say it's time to re-evaluate your values system.
Humility is a virtue most of us can use more of.
Tim,
Pride? S*it happens to everyone - hitting a rough patch is no reason to be ashamed of feel that your pride has been wounded. If you're lucky enough to have friends who want to take you out, why not take advantage of it.
When you're going through that rough patch, sometimes you may feel that your pride is the one thing you CAN afford. And maintaining it may be a way to maintain the sense that you WILL overcome your circumstances. Megan said she felt as if taking the offered handout could be a "quick route to life as a permanent sponge"; I might paraphrase that she saw that accepting the kind offer to pay might erode her (take your pick) sense of self-worth at a time when that sense was already under serious attack, high level of motivation to keep hitting the pavement looking for work, confidence in job-seeking...
The solution is, as others have said, exquisite sensitivity to one another on both sides. If that sensitivity is absent, well, maybe that's not a relationship that will survive the rough patch - not because of the rough patch but because the rough patch highlighted the lack of sensitivity.
I know. Exactly. Buddy of mine was in a car accident recently and got a broken leg. Was on crutches for weeks.
I kept inviting him out, you know for a hike or something. But that damn SOB kept turning me down. I mean c'mon.
I kept telling him, "It's not your fault you were in that car accident and, hey, I really want to go to Six Flags". But no, no, no! He kept yammerin' on about how hard it was to get around, how the cast made his leg itch, how he didn't like people staring at his bruises. Talk 'bout whining and wallowing in self pity.
I mean I offered to pay. You'd think people would be more appreciative.
I ended up having to go by myself. Hardly had any fun at all.
He probably just doesn't enjoy your false analogies.
I had a friend in my same field who was laid off a couple of months ago, less than a year after we both graduated. Besides feeling sympathy for him, my next strongest emotion was one of guilt. He worked harder than I did in school (and I'm no smarter than he), but he had the bad luck to pick an employer who laid people off. I had the good luck not to. I would have taken the job that he did if it had been offered to me, but I'm obviously glad now that I didn't.
Nobody likes thinking their success is the result of luck, even in part. When our peers fail, we want to think they must have done something wrong; that it could never happen to us. It's obviously not true, of course.
There are ways to deal with this, as I've been on both sides of the "rich friend/poor friend" divide for many of my friends at different parts of my life. The key is when you're the monied one, don't invite your poor friends to anything they can't reasonably afford or otherwise let them suggest an alternative. This is where dinner parties or movie nights or other inexpensive but social activities can be handy. And if you're the "poor friend", simply take initiative by suggesting the outing and picking something you can afford. I don't think any "rich friend" doesn't understand those limitations.
At last! Sensible advice. Rather than agonizing about why your poverty stricken friend doesn't have the good sense to drop his false pride and admit he's poor, suggest an actual alternative, that involves spending actual time with someone, that doesn't actually cost a lot of money.
It sure beats the "Why in God's name won't he accept my charity, like that nice guy next to the overpass?"
What I used to tell my friends with less money, when I had more (the situation has reversed itself now) is "I don't want to go to the places you can afford." And then I'd take them out to dinner someplace I'd want to go.
But for most of my friends, who derive their sense of satisfaction from the nature of the work they do rather than the money it provides, the amount of money we happen to have at any given moment isn't a reflection of our value as individuals. The problem is when self-esteem is too closely linked to discretionary income. (And that's the real issue: going-out-to-eat money is different from paying-the-rent money.) We do see everything beyond the necessities as fleeting pleasures to enjoy and then let go, not as badges of membership in the bobo class.
MC,
But, what about instances where people are making mistakes. I have a friend who took a job at a company he never even bothered to google. If he had, he would have found out they had already gone through a few rounds of layoffs. As he already had a job, he certainly could have negotiated a generous severance package before he agreed to take the job.
You might say - "Everyone knows to research a company before taking a job" - but, I can testify to the fact that many don't.
Gimme a break. I'm not saying that nobody ever deserves to lose a job, nor that we shouldn't do our due diligence in choosing an employer. But surely you don't think it's always the case that the unemployed had it coming to them, do you? If you believe that, then you clearly rely too heavily on your employment for your sense of self-worth.
But surely you don't think it's always the case that the unemployed had it coming to them, do you?
Oh no, no, certainly not!
I'm just saying that there are all things that we don't know. Often people may have valuable advice they are reluctant to share because they think it is so obvious. In many cases what is obvious to you is not obvious to someone with a different background and vice-versa.
I wasn't arguing against offering advice, merely elaborating on Megan's comment that some people "had what seemed like a psychopathic need to view my straitened circumstances as my own fault." That's different from offering advice.
So. If I were applying at a fairly well known company, than I would be like, "Hey! They've just laid off 400 people over three months."
But not every person works for a company whose employment figures are heavily tracked, and I can't think of many small business that send out press releases saying, "By the way, we have a habit of firing employees for no reason whatsoever."
Bazleon references some random Jennifer Aniston indie movie. I have never heard of the movie, but that does remind me that this very issue came up on Friends in, like, 1996. Damned Joey and his no-money acting career and Phoebe and her taxi driving and Rachel and her waitressing were holding big money Chandler, Monica and Ross back!
Apparently nobody had the balls to tell them to move out of their gigantic SoHo apartment to save money if they were so hard up. (Wonder if anybody said the same to Megan?)
That episode is a perfect example of what we're talking about and they did a good job of covering the issues--it's hard for both sides. Joey, Phoebe and Rachel didn't wanted to distrub the friendship, but they couldn't afford to do much. Chandler, Monica and Ross figured the solution is to pay for everything and then didn't understand why their act of largesse wasn't accepted. They meant well, but they were insulting.
Well, I was living at home and putting every spare dollar into paying down student loans, so I'm not sure where I could have gone.
Apparently nobody had the balls to tell them to move out of their gigantic SoHo apartment to save money if they were so hard up.
IIRC the ludicrously expensive apartment was an (illegal) rent control sublet.
If you're trying to socialize in high-rent areas, the apartment issue comes into play in a different way as well. I had a bunch of friends laid off in the dot-com bust, and finding things to do on the cheap was surprisingly hard simply because no one, even those of us with jobs, could afford an apartment big enough to have a dinner party. (Or much of any party for that matter.) Even if you had a rich or Trustafarian friend with an actual, like, dining room, then you just had to deal with apartment envy, which wasn't really helpful.
That's why just about everyone in NYC conducts their social life blowing cash in restaurants and bars - it's not hedonism, just lack of space.
We ended up settling on a formula of pizza, beer and Jackie Chan marathons. Seemed ideally suited to the fact that anything we did would de facto be in front of the TV anyway, and all food would be eaten off our laps. One guy, we had a pretty good blow-out helping him pack up his stuff when he moved back in with his mother.
Some of them just didn't understand that a Chinese food dinner with a couple of beers wasn't a discount treat, but an unaffordable luxury--and when they figured it out, offered to pay, which seemed like a quick route to life as a permanent sponge.
I'm surprised a person of your talents didn't turn to the obvious solution: Baking. Everyone likes homemade food, lots of people don't have time to make it, especially when those people are getting handed the responsibilities of two other people that just got laid off. Everyone wins -- the person with time and no money shares their labor, the person with no time shares their money.
A friend of mine survived several years of low-income college life and subsequent job hunting during a recession this way. She got meals and entertainment paid for quite regularly, and her friends got from-scratch cookies, birthday cakes, and sometimes even a full home-cooked meal that they didn't have time/ambition/talent/other relatives/whatever to make on their own.
Baking only gets you so far no matter who your friends are. And if you like to cook and bake with quality ingredients it can be as expensive if not more so than eating out.
Truth be told Megan and I rekindled our friendship somewhat because of her unemployment. I was in grad school and she was unemployeed and we kept bumping into each other.
hitting a rough patch is no reason to be ashamed of feel that your pride has been wounded.
There are plenty of perfectly good reasons to be uncomfortable getting unreciprocated gifts. One might feel that one is taking on an obligation one can't (or won't want to, when the time comes) repay, that the parties are not meeting as equals, that the giver will resent the recipient for mooching, or yes, pride, as in the pride that many people take in independence. Humility is an appealing characteristic, but it's more useful to have the humility to take a crappy job if available than to take a handout from your friends.
I wouldn't want to get dinner out from one of my friends, but fortunately I have neither friends nor the time to eat dinner out.
That raises a point I hadn't even thought of - evolutionary sociology. There's strong reasons why we would be disinclined to accept group largesse during times of need - doing so would leave us less likely to receive help in the future and could reduce our chances of proving value to a potential mate.
Man. I'm going to go dust off some old Steven Pinkner, right quick.
Humility is an appealing characteristic, but it's more useful to have the humility to take a crappy job if available than to take a handout from your friends.
It's precisely because they're friends that it's not a "handout." We're not talking about supporting someone, just being able to enjoy their company in a comfortable setting.
I think one has to ask if such pursuit of status is worth your ego not being able to survive someone else paying the tab to spend time with people who enjoy your company.
I've had no problem maintaining friendships with people on both sides of that divide. You just have to be a bit sensitive if you're on the "have money" side and a bit assertive if you aren't.
Most here seem to think that income disparity is just a temporary thing. It may not be and when your income does not keep up with those you know they will soon be those you knew absent some talent or celebrity that makes you 'useful' socially.
Money is power and power changes relationships. I read an interesting story awhile back in, I think the NYT magazine about life in the Hamptons during this economic maelstrom. The writer made the important
observation that life in such communities was like joining a club. Well
that is really true about life everywhere. Your income determines which 'club' you belong too and if you can't pay the dues anymore you don't belong to the club. You have to join a new club where the membership fees fit your lifestyle. Again with the important caveat that if you have some socially useful characteristic you may, for as long as that characteristic is desirable or remembered, allow you to substitute it for membership dues.
May I say that if your friendships depend on income, then they are not exactly friendships?
That differences in income can lead to separation -- of course! But friendship is not defined by geology or bank accounts. Thank goodness! One of my best friends is separated from me by a 1000 miles and 1,000,000 bucks.
"But friendship is not defined by geology ..."
No, not at all. I have many igneous friends that still get along well with my metamorphic and even some of my snotty sedimentary friends after the eruption.
That's exactly what they were trying to do. Likely, they were thinking something along the lines of, "If it can happen to her, then it can happen to me, right?" So, of course, they try to prove themselves wrong by haranguing you about things you should or should not have done.
When I've been unemployed or under-employed I don't have time for friends. I'm too busy working.
If the issue is income disparity, I don't think you'd never see a friend, but you'd probably see them less since you couldn't participate in all their activities. Heck, I see my friends further away less often when I earn less because it costs so much to travel.
MEGAN, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WRITE ONE BLOG POST ABOUT YOUR GLASSES. WHY YOU WEAR GLASSES INSTEAD OF CONTACTS. WHAT STYLE OF GLASSES YOU LIKE, ETC.
On sometimes-permanent income disparity: An older relative-by-marriage of mine still has all the same friends he had in high school. Unfortunately for him, his buds all went into construction in SoCal, started buying cheap land and building on spec, and are all now millionaires (real ones, not just SoCal ones), as this was back during that window when this strategy worked. My relative, more interested in building engines than in building houses, opened his own auto shop, and was reasonably successful for a long time - successful enough to "keep up" in many respects, though he ran up a lot of debt in that effort. Then his fortunes went south and he started taking home less and less, while his friends were still thriving with their millions reasonably invested.
It's become kinda awkward for both sides. They still spend time together, are still friends, but where they used to go out sometimes, now it's ALWAYS dinner at one of the rich ones' houses; where they used to go on cruises together, now it's infrequent weekends at the lake in their RVs (the rich ones have super-cool RVs and consider themselves to be "camping," roughing it for fun; my relative has an old but excellently maintained RV and considers himself to be taking the only vacation he can). My relative being a man of a certain age who would rather die bleeding from the ears than accept charity, I've been impressed by his acceptance of the situation. And his friends' being essentially a bunch of good ol' boys who, to their own astonishment, are now rich, I've been impressed by their grace and sensitivity. But that's not to say it's been easy.
This poem, about a century old, shows what Megan feared. E A Robinson was very open about seeking support from his Harvard friends on the basis that he was one of the nation's great poets. Because he was secure in his self-worth, and was a kind man who cherished friends whether they helped him or not, there seemed to be no angst.
Yes, "money is power." But so is love, so is friendship, so is art, so is death and so is the maker of heaven and earth who will come back in glory to judge the living and the dead. We just have to decide which power we want to serve and worship.
Bewick Finzer
Time was when his half million drew
The breath of six per cent;
But soon the worm of what-was-not
Fed hard on his content;
And something crumbled in his brain
When his half million went.
Time passed, and filled along with his
The place of many more;
Time came, and hardly one of us
Had credence to restore,
From what appeared one day, the man
Whom we had known before.
The broken voice, the withered neck,
The coat worn out with care,
The cleanliness of indigence,
The brilliance of despair,
The fond imponderable dreams
Of affluence,--all were there.
Poor Finzer, with his dreams and schemes,
Fares hard now in the race,
With heart and eye that have a task
When he looks in the eye
Of one who might so easily
Have been in Finzer's place.
He comes unfailing for the loan
We give and then forget;
He comes, and probably for years
Will he be coming yet,--
Familiar as an old mistake,
And futile as regret.
For the other outcome, see Bill Whittle over at Pajamasmedia:
"A MESSAGE TO THE RICH"
"Nobody knows you when you're down and out"
"You can have anything you want; Just don't take too much."
Etymologically speaking "friend" and "freedom" have a common
root, with a meaning related to shared beliefs as to proper
behavior, particularly in Bad Times:
"what are friends for ?" but also "No friend of mine."
Strawman: evolutionary sociology...
You betcha, particularly the part about the different rules
for Good Times and Bad Times; This is the point on which I
really, really, hope I'm wrong, "But I don't think so" :(
CICERO in "Pro Milone": "Silent enim leges inter arma"
It is applicable generally, people, not just in matters of law,
and most of the analysis I read, here and elsewhere, ignores
the effect that change from rule of law to rule of force will
have on future events.
It is all too common for people to want to Solve Things rather than just be supportive. In my experience, when one mentions a problem to anyone else, the first impulse is to offer suggestions to fix it. This is a pretty natural impulse. I usually try, when hearing of a problem, to learn right away whether advice is wanted.
I've had my share of health problems, and the range of anecdotally supported remedies would astound you. The impulse seems to be irresistible.
Megan is right - the true friends support the friendship.
I notice that people seem to respond a lot better to the words "I'd love to but, I'm trying really hard to stick to a budget since I'm saving up money for my dream purchase of x, y, or z"(a nice car, house, etc.).
In my case, I've been using this excuse for the past 5 years or so to save up money for a house, so it's not a lie. It's a good way of avoiding pity or unwanted advice. And most friends, once they're in on the goal, will respect your self-discipline(the same way people are somewhat in awe of those who actually stick to a diet and lose weight), and get into the habit of offering cheaper entertainment options.
Sometimes, I think those who live in a big city forget how to enjoy simpler forms of entertainment...like playing cards, chess or board games. You need not have a huge apartment or spend elaborate money to invite a few friends over for beer, popcorn, and Blockbusters. Unless it's a class thing and you'd feel humiliated by it.
It strikes me that so many in this commentary keep harping on why people are in their dire straits or why they should accept handouts and simply move on.
The entire point of the article to me was about the difference between real and nominal friends. Real friends give friends the benefit of the doubt. Real friends don't look for blame in friends. Real friends try to make friends comfortable.
I just get a feeling that there are a lot of nominal friends speaking out here.
Xica_da_Silva brought up something important. It's not just people who have been laid off who get into this situation, although they probably have the most stress because their situation is involuntary. Everyone who is saving for a big goal is in a similar place as far as the details of the invitations, though. So is a lawyer who goes public interest (rather than private sector), someone who works in the arts instead of business, and anyone who goes back to school. Oh, and kids... can't forget the changes that happen in friendships because of kids.
And then there are the people who go on strict diets, or give up alcohol, or who have health problems and can't play in their sports leagues anymore.
Everybody goes through some of these changes, and real friends are the ones who stick with you through the transitions. A bunch of young people still in their bar-going years are now discovering this. It's a good thing to know before the really complicated life changes start happening.
For young urbanites, though, the small apartment problem is real. The trick is to use public places that don't cost a lot. Outdoor concerts, picnics in the park, hiking trails, museums, etc. Sometimes formal groups you belong to take care of providing the space. Anyone who has been a student probably knows the drill.
This is a great post and closely resembled my reaction to the Bazelon piece. I went through a period of unemployment right out of graduate school, when most of my friends had landed fairly high paying jobs. My unemployment was the result of a number of factors, including mistakes I made and some very bad luck. It turned out to be a great way to clear out all those nominal "friends" from school. If I'd had a job, I would have been going out and celebrating our collective good fortune with plenty of people it turns out I didn't like very much. Instead, I spent actual quality time with people I genuinely care about, and those friendships deepened as a result of having them with me during a tough time in my life.
It also occurs to me that money isn't the only thing that causes these kinds of rifts. Your 20s, 30s, sometimes 40s are filled with life changes that happen at different times for different people, and don't happen to some people at all. I've noticed that when some people get married, they abandon their single friends altogether, whereas other friendships survive despite the different circumstances. Same with having kids or buying a house. If your "friendship" is based on something as shallow as just being in the same life stage and living in the same city, it won't survive this kind of upheaval. But when you really care about someone, you'll find time for them even if it means navigating your spouse or their kids, or trucking out to the suburbs to toast their new house.
Another thing I've learned is that while it can be challenging to hold onto friendships when you're not exactly in the same situation as your friend, it is worth it for the rich diversity it provides. I have rich married friends. I have struggling artist friends. I have single, condo-owning yuppie friends. I'm blessed to know so many interesting people who have found so many different paths through life. And as a result, I find that I don't stress out as much as I once did about "keeping up". Instead of getting jealous of, or feeling superior to, my friends of different circumstances, I revel in their stories and perspectives and am grateful to hear about a life that is in some way different from my own.
I have a good friend who makes more than 5x what I do. He is also unmarried and has no children. I would feel bad if every time we went out to eat, I insisted on going someplace that I could afford when I know that he is quite capable of paying for both of us to eat at a nicer place that we will both enjoy more. I do pay occasionally, especially when I choose the venue, but I don't see any reason not to let him pay if it means we can go hang out at a fancy restaurant and enjoy some delicious food and it's no burden on him. Part of the deal, though, is I don't suggest the expensive places, I let him. That way he can suggest a cheap place if he wants.
When I was in high school and college, I sometimes hung out with kids who had access to more money. Sometimes I would go with them and order an appetizer and then eat something else later. Other times, I would suggest a cheap place. Fortunately, my friends weren't particularly status-conscious nor did they value a person for their wealth.
I have had lots of friends that were mostly just friends because we were in the same place. Those come and go. Other friends have lasted through changes. As FishFish says, the latter are really true friends. The others, while not "fake", are more like comrades. We would help each other out like friends would but when one moves or drastically changes their life, they drift away.