I started reading this New York Times article (on a family surviving the severe pay cut of one of the wage earners. ) this morning with my coffee and just finished it up. I found it very striking, very interesting and it fits in perfectly with something I’ve been thinking about a lot these days: income.

Specifically, how much is not enough, and what does not enough mean exactly?

So the Lawlors soldier on, with plenty of family help. Their sisters have pitched in with baby-sitting, gratis. His parents bought their kitchen table, the dining room table, a playpen, a living room sofa and the deck furniture. His father’s two unmarried sisters, both retired teachers, insist on helping their only nephew — the one family member perpetuating the Lawlor name not only in this generation but, through his three sons, the next generation.

The aunts offer a subsidy. They insist, for example, that Bryan Lawlor eat healthy meals when he is on the road, even if that means spending more than his airline-allotted per diem. They’ll pay, and Mr. Lawlor says he does now eat properly. The aunts also paid $200 to rent “moon bounce” equipment for a Lawlor child’s birthday party last month. The birthday boy had asked for the party entertainment, and the Lawlors obliged, with the aunts’ help, not wanting the father’s loss of income to translate into constraints on the children’s lives

This article is just chock full of good quotes and this is one. What does this say when a family with four children feels the need to use someone else’s money to rent a “moon bounce” device for a kids birthday party because they didn’t want it to translate into “constraints”.

Constraints? Not having a moon bounce for your birthday isn’t a constraint. It’s a favor.

I’ll have to come back to this it’s time for Jon Stewart (yes I watch last nights episode today – I can’t stay up that late.)