fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2725 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2725 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 018 secrets from Secret Submission Post #389.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Yeah, but it's....just not true. I did a temp job for six months that was literally not reachable by public transport unless you were willing to walk 8 km to and 8 km back every day from the nearest bus stop.

That is the most extreme case, but there were other places where it was sort of semi possible, but would have added more than 2 hours travel time daily. Being able to look for jobs in a larger radius gives you more opportunities (and makes you more likely to actually take a job, because to some people tat extra travel time is just not possible with kids going to school etc).

It's easy to hate the unemployed. I know I had a lot of prejudices before it happened to me.

Edited 2014-06-20 08:13 (UTC)

[ SECRET POST #2725 ]

Re: Poverty and "luxury items" - a discussion