Here's something that maybe a bit of a tangential thought.
In about 1978-1980, there was a big push for believers who owned companies to hire other believers. Now, along with that, the owners were "encouraged" to pay their employees on a "needs" basis.
Sorry about your marriage Waysider. My first one also ended in divorce and for me it was less than pleasant.
Anyway, to continue a bit with the tangent, I believe it turned out to be illegal to pay employees on a need basis. I think the gov requires an employer to pay into social security, unemployment, and I think they have to at least pay minimum wage. I could be wrong about that. I think the Supreme Court ruled on that sometime in the early 80's if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure there's someone reading who runs a business who knows for sure.
I have lived in the same house now for over 2 years... This is the longest time I have lived in one house in my adult life. Scary, isn't it?
And it still seems that every August I think I should be getting ready for some big move.
And WHY was it always August when we were moving? Ministry year? New assignments? Or was it just that they wanted to torture us in the insanely HOT weather?
"How exactly do you determine those needs without sticking your nose into private financial matters where it doesn't belong?"
When I was on staff at the Way Nash, it was easy. "need basis" means "what do you need, moneywise, for a salary?" It was no more complicated than that. '74/'75 the Way was still fairly young in it's need for full time staff employees so the hiring process was done mostly one-on-one with VPW first, then Howard Allen. Basically VPW didn't get involved in the details of "what do you need and why", we just worked it out with Howard. No one asked "why do you need that" or "you don't need that".
Applied, "needs basis" allows for flexible year-to-year budgeting. It can both work and not
In it's hay-day I'd bet more than one potential lawyer, doctor, other majorly educated professional was lost to our society. ...probably a bunch of teachers too.
It's not only those individuals who were robbed, although that would be a large enough crime. But also the rest of society during those years.
In demanding all the money into THEIR abs coffers, there was not much left for little things (little = ha) like a donation to "the Boy's club and Girls club" in local areas, or even for Girl Scout Cookies. I always wanted to contribute toward the running and other expenses of my church...before twi......and there was always something left for these other things. So many local contributions to local charities were cut off.
So much evil was done - - by commission and by omission in their name while fat cats continue of suck off our paps (indirectly, of course)
and the menial jobs we took because we knew we'd be leaving before too long. I had opportunities I turned down.....
We even had to move during our WOW year because the limb leader didn't like our apartment. It was five months until August and we had to friggin move. Geeeesh
When someone borrows a hundred dollars from you because they blew their money in a bar...
that person is in debt...when you have payments on a house, you are not really in debt...you are merely buying something with payments...it's an investment that you gain equity in. Isn't that the same thing as corps tuition?...Twi collects the money in payments every month so you can stay in the corps.
So what's the difference? I would have to say that, by their own logic,
a person is violating the "being in debt" the moment they enter the corps and start making monthly payments...
It's all semantics. And TWI's stupid logic on the topic makes no sense whatsoever. For instance, you can't have a mortgage on a home. All a mortgage represents is an agreement to pay a monthly amount over the course of 30 years or until you sell the home. To contrast this, TWI vagabonds sign lease agreements yearly. That is an agreement to pay a monthly amount over the course of 1 year. What is the difference? Nothing. On a lease you are still liable for the full yearly amount. If TWI was being consistent in their debt policy, they would require people not to enter into an agreement where they did not have the resources at the time of entering in to the agreement to satisfy the whole agreement. But that would put people in an impossible situation, as opposed to a merely very difficult situation.
TWI members can lease cars and not be in debt. However, if they "purchase" a car on a loan, that is debt. What's the difference? You pay a substantial fee for utilizing someone else's capital in a lease situation.
No, that policy is as dumb as the day is long. It keeps people as non-permanent members of society, vagabonds, and in the lower class. Most people in neighborhoods do not interact with renters. They consider them second class. And mostly they are. Most renters will never improve the condition of the property they live in, as it makes no fiscal sense to do so.
One thing the debt policy does, though. It is a barrier to proving loyalty. Those who succumb to it, they are much more willing to compromise other areas of their lives. It's a Pharisee pre-qualification.
I think that in moving repeatedly one has no ties with the outside world, no chance to build trust with people outside of twi. It made it so much easier to subscribe to their warped views. I think that was a huge part of our dependence on them.
The part that I found most disturbing was the fact that people were REQUIRED to
disclose their personal financial situation to twi. Teach what they may, they had no right to stick their noses in people's private business. How many other churches do this? I left before this
"policy" became strict law...but while I was in, I always told twi leadership that my
personal financial situation was none of their business.
GM, interesting post. I was involved in TWI from 1978-1988. Â Not once in the ten years, I was in, did TWI ask about my financial situation. Â I agree with you; my money situation, was not their business. Â I think I would have left, if they had stuck their noses, in that aspect of my life.
I was thinking back to when I was still involved with the way and I was under the spell of their no debt policy and renting homes.
I had to move four times within a period of three years!Hence vagabond lifestyle.
I was so sick of not only moving myself,but also helping everyone else in the branch move.It was always interesting to me that the b.o.d. and other leaders who praised and enforced the no debt policy were never around to help move anyone.
Anyone else experience the vagabond lifestyle?
I did, and I hated it! Â Now, I stay put here in DC.
I was thinking back to when I was still involved with the way and I was under the spell of their no debt policy and renting homes.
I had to move four times within a period of three years!Hence vagabond lifestyle.
I was so sick of not only moving myself,but also helping everyone else in the branch move.It was always interesting to me that the b.o.d. and other leaders who praised and enforced the no debt policy were never around to help move anyone.
Anyone else experience the vagabond lifestyle?
Mud, Military Personnel move quite frequently. Â Sometimes, it's great. Â Sometimes, it sucks. Uncle Sam can be fickle to work for.
Oh, it's not all sad. Lots of good things came with the move. Still, when people ask me if I have any regrets about my life, I'm reminded that I regret leaving home and never going back-----at least not in a permanent sense. I guess there's a certain amount of sadness in that. The song is more of an emotional catharsis than an actual depiction of events.
Way, I left Central New York State decades ago, and am very glad that I did. IMO, "home" is the place I love living, and for me, that place is DC. I think people should live where they can afford to live, and where they enjoy themselves. Â
I can't go back to high school for a few non-ethereal reasons. One is, they tore it down about twenty years ago..
it's a funny feeling though..
Ham, you couldn't pay me enough money to go back to high school! Â My life is much better now, than it was when I was in high school. Â Perhaps some miss their high school years; not me. Â Living with my family during those years, was hell.
While I am concerned about Credit Card debt(which a number of Americans have), LCM and TWI were afraid that their coffers would dry up and have to declare bankruptcy, either Chapter 7 or 11, and their records would be audited or else supenas(?)/warrants by a court judge would be issued.
Recommended Posts
Ham
I dunno..
it's like high school.. maybe.
I can't go back to high school for a few non-ethereal reasons. One is, they tore it down about twenty years ago..
it's a funny feeling though..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Broken Arrow
Sorry about your marriage Waysider. My first one also ended in divorce and for me it was less than pleasant.
Anyway, to continue a bit with the tangent, I believe it turned out to be illegal to pay employees on a need basis. I think the gov requires an employer to pay into social security, unemployment, and I think they have to at least pay minimum wage. I could be wrong about that. I think the Supreme Court ruled on that sometime in the early 80's if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure there's someone reading who runs a business who knows for sure.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
unless one is bigger than gawd, yet still small enough to fly below government radar..
Almost sounds like running a small business in New Jersey..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JavaJane
I have lived in the same house now for over 2 years... This is the longest time I have lived in one house in my adult life. Scary, isn't it?
And it still seems that every August I think I should be getting ready for some big move.
And WHY was it always August when we were moving? Ministry year? New assignments? Or was it just that they wanted to torture us in the insanely HOT weather?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
socks
"How exactly do you determine those needs without sticking your nose into private financial matters where it doesn't belong?"
When I was on staff at the Way Nash, it was easy. "need basis" means "what do you need, moneywise, for a salary?" It was no more complicated than that. '74/'75 the Way was still fairly young in it's need for full time staff employees so the hiring process was done mostly one-on-one with VPW first, then Howard Allen. Basically VPW didn't get involved in the details of "what do you need and why", we just worked it out with Howard. No one asked "why do you need that" or "you don't need that".
Applied, "needs basis" allows for flexible year-to-year budgeting. It can both work and not
work in your best interests.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...I think that the vast number of way followers led lives like gypsies...I'm talking
about the rank and file "twig attenders" who were talked into going wow...thousands of people
took on the lifestyle of a gypsie...and then the corps and all the moving around...
People gave up promising careers because of this farce...
...transients...gypsies, "would you like fries with that sir?"...no stability...no debt...
no planting roots...no life...
The twi lifestyle is a dead end street...it's all about them and nothing about you.
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Yes, those careers and educations interrupted!
In it's hay-day I'd bet more than one potential lawyer, doctor, other majorly educated professional was lost to our society. ...probably a bunch of teachers too.
It's not only those individuals who were robbed, although that would be a large enough crime. But also the rest of society during those years.
In demanding all the money into THEIR abs coffers, there was not much left for little things (little = ha) like a donation to "the Boy's club and Girls club" in local areas, or even for Girl Scout Cookies. I always wanted to contribute toward the running and other expenses of my church...before twi......and there was always something left for these other things. So many local contributions to local charities were cut off.
So much evil was done - - by commission and by omission in their name while fat cats continue of suck off our paps (indirectly, of course)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
and the menial jobs we took because we knew we'd be leaving before too long. I had opportunities I turned down.....
We even had to move during our WOW year because the limb leader didn't like our apartment. It was five months until August and we had to friggin move. Geeeesh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
what a dick
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mudflaps
One of the special benefits of home ownership I enjoy is I am putting money into my investment,not the landlords.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
When someone borrows a hundred dollars from you because they blew their money in a bar...
that person is in debt...when you have payments on a house, you are not really in debt...you are merely buying something with payments...it's an investment that you gain equity in. Isn't that the same thing as corps tuition?...Twi collects the money in payments every month so you can stay in the corps.
So what's the difference? I would have to say that, by their own logic,
a person is violating the "being in debt" the moment they enter the corps and start making monthly payments...
Edited by GrouchoMarxJrLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
It's all semantics. And TWI's stupid logic on the topic makes no sense whatsoever. For instance, you can't have a mortgage on a home. All a mortgage represents is an agreement to pay a monthly amount over the course of 30 years or until you sell the home. To contrast this, TWI vagabonds sign lease agreements yearly. That is an agreement to pay a monthly amount over the course of 1 year. What is the difference? Nothing. On a lease you are still liable for the full yearly amount. If TWI was being consistent in their debt policy, they would require people not to enter into an agreement where they did not have the resources at the time of entering in to the agreement to satisfy the whole agreement. But that would put people in an impossible situation, as opposed to a merely very difficult situation.
TWI members can lease cars and not be in debt. However, if they "purchase" a car on a loan, that is debt. What's the difference? You pay a substantial fee for utilizing someone else's capital in a lease situation.
No, that policy is as dumb as the day is long. It keeps people as non-permanent members of society, vagabonds, and in the lower class. Most people in neighborhoods do not interact with renters. They consider them second class. And mostly they are. Most renters will never improve the condition of the property they live in, as it makes no fiscal sense to do so.
One thing the debt policy does, though. It is a barrier to proving loyalty. Those who succumb to it, they are much more willing to compromise other areas of their lives. It's a Pharisee pre-qualification.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
So how does one's "leadership" in da way even KNOW if one is in debt nowadays?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
We have put down roots and it is good :)
I think that in moving repeatedly one has no ties with the outside world, no chance to build trust with people outside of twi. It made it so much easier to subscribe to their warped views. I think that was a huge part of our dependence on them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvV-4NNOMhQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvV-4NNOMhQ?fs=1&hl=en_US"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvV-4NNOMhQ?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></object>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
GM, interesting post. I was involved in TWI from 1978-1988. Â Not once in the ten years, I was in, did TWI ask about my financial situation. Â I agree with you; my money situation, was not their business. Â I think I would have left, if they had stuck their noses, in that aspect of my life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Way, perhaps he was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
I did, and I hated it! Â Now, I stay put here in DC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Best sums up entire debt policy. Â Enforced by both male and female presidents, yet still applies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Mud, Military Personnel move quite frequently. Â Sometimes, it's great. Â Sometimes, it sucks. Uncle Sam can be fickle to work for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Way, I left Central New York State decades ago, and am very glad that I did. IMO, "home" is the place I love living, and for me, that place is DC. I think people should live where they can afford to live, and where they enjoy themselves. Â
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Ham, you couldn't pay me enough money to go back to high school! Â My life is much better now, than it was when I was in high school. Â Perhaps some miss their high school years; not me. Â Living with my family during those years, was hell.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Thomas Loy Bumgarner
While I am concerned about Credit Card debt(which a number of Americans have), LCM and TWI were afraid that their coffers would dry up and have to declare bankruptcy, either Chapter 7 or 11, and their records would be audited or else supenas(?)/warrants by a court judge would be issued.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.