I liked it too but found it not that believable. Did anyone else notice that her 2 yr old is perfect and amidst all the chaos only cried when shmariel flew out the window? Must be nice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved this series.
It focused on how the system really does not encourage single mothers to get ahead and find prosperity.
It seems welfare is a trap that the government uses to keep people from doing better.

Agreed. And even the happy ending is a farce. Notice how they sneak in a few mentions of Alex taking out student loans to go to college. When she graduates, she’s going to struggle with that albatross like most millennials.

It never ends. The American system is set up so that breaking out of poverty is an anomaly. There are roadblocks every step of the way.

Land of opportunity my a$$, this country is a playground for the rich.

If she continued cleaning homes through college (advertise on the locally hoarding board) AND lived frugally - she has a way she can head out. It would take incredible determination but she could do it. She only took $9000 out in loans, if I recall correctly. Obviously that means she was not planning on having all living expenses paid via borrowed money. She now knows the system more, works under the table some, etc.

Anonymous wrote:I loved this series.
It focused on how the system really does not encourage single mothers to get ahead and find prosperity.
It seems welfare is a trap that the government uses to keep people from doing better.

Agreed. And even the happy ending is a farce. Notice how they sneak in a few mentions of Alex taking out student loans to go to college. When she graduates, she’s going to struggle with that albatross like most millennials.

It never ends. The American system is set up so that breaking out of poverty is an anomaly. There are roadblocks every step of the way.

Land of opportunity my a$$, this country is a playground for the rich.

I loved this series.
It focused on how the system really does not encourage single mothers to get ahead and find prosperity.
It seems welfare is a trap that the government uses to keep people from doing better.

But she didn’t do that. ^^ she relied on him for financial and material help. She was staying with him, used his address for the daycare, used his car, used his food, etc. she was in no way saying no to him to maintain her independence and self reliance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I loved this show EXCEPT it totally annoyed me she didn't treat the guy (can't remember his name) better -- the guy who had a thing for her who took her in. He clearly cared for her, was a great guy AND was her ticket out of poverty!

I agree but for a different reason. She didn't owe him anything back just because he was nice to her. She didn't have to fall for him just because he could have rescued her. I was disappointed the series didn't have her get with him because SHE WAS ATTRACTED TO HIM. I can see if she wasn't...but she was.

I grew up white trash and this made perfect sense to me. WT girls are warned by their moms and neighbors to never rely on a man. It's seen as a path that is very likely to fail, although tempting because it solves immediate issues like housing, food, and in some cases even healthcare.

The way that works is investing in yourself with skills or education, or the military. It makes sense based on the main character's background and culture that she would avoid another relationship, even with a nice man.

When I was in my 20s, men were the siren song, tempting me with an easy way out. On a couple occasions, well established middle class men in their 30s would offer for me to live with them. I lived in this $200/month room with a shared bathroom in an out of the way part of town. They couldn't really understand why I said no, and I was too freaked out by the fact they didn't even want to date before living together. It didn't bode well. As I got more established, I received similar offers but then it came from rich men- and one exceptionally rich men. In retrospect, these were the sort of offers it may have been okay to consider (the extremely rich man said I would have an apartment and we would date and he would wait for me to fall in love with him). But I could never shake the need to establish myself and not rely on anyone financially, so I avoided any relationship that entailed financial or material support or help.

Anonymous wrote:It is weird because in the Nanny forums, anytime anyone mentions that they either a.) Pay their Nanny under the table or b.) Are working off-the-books, people immediately criticize them & jump down their throat(s.)

They start screaming out tax fraud and even mention that if the IRS does an audit, how these families AND Nannies will all have to go to jail and/or pay back all the $$ they will owe Uncle Sam.

I guess everyone in this forum is nicer.

The two times we interviewed nannies the last eight years they were pretty clear they wanted $42k on the books and the rest cash in order to not lose any welfare, snap, Medicaid, housing benefits.

Anonymous wrote:I loved this show EXCEPT it totally annoyed me she didn't treat the guy (can't remember his name) better -- the guy who had a thing for her who took her in. He clearly cared for her, was a great guy AND was her ticket out of poverty!

I agree but for a different reason. She didn't owe him anything back just because he was nice to her. She didn't have to fall for him just because he could have rescued her. I was disappointed the series didn't have her get with him because SHE WAS ATTRACTED TO HIM. I can see if she wasn't...but she was.

I loved this show EXCEPT it totally annoyed me she didn't treat the guy (can't remember his name) better -- the guy who had a thing for her who took her in. He clearly cared for her, was a great guy AND was her ticket out of poverty!

Anonymous wrote:Agree that Andie MacDowell stole the show. She should win an award.

NP. I thought she was horrific. She overdid the acting, bigtime, and it was so distracting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Illegal border crossing isn’t something immoral anymore; then why is working under the table?

+1
Amen.

I am a full-time nanny and I work forty hours a week plus I occasionally get overtime when my nanny family needs the extra hours.
So for example I make a certain amount for the first forty hours, then 10-15 hours extra I make time and a half.
I am also receiving SSI for alcoholism (issues), but it is not enough to pay my portion of the rent. I also receive COVID-19 food stamps which only covers 1/3 of my overall food expenses in a month.
If I didn’t bring in money from caring for kids, then I would be desolate. I hate working under the proverbial table because I know that I cannot use my income to qualify for a car or house loan from a bank. It is tough, but if I reported my cash income I would likely lose all of my government aid.
Especially my Medicaid which pays for my medications. Thankfully with Medicaid there is never a co-pay.

…………………………….
So all of the people on here bashing Alexis and poor people, it is a huge challenge getting money from the government! The amount one receives are certainly not enough to live on.
Unless for a day.

You put a true-life spin on how being poor in our country is such a trap.
Government help is not enough to live off of, yet if one tries to work and earn a living on their own then they are penalized by the “system.”
Government aid should help people transition out of poverty and desperation, not trap them.

Alex needed the SNAP and housing assistance.
Without it - she and Maddie would have been sleeping on the streets with their stomachs empty.
Plus Alex had to show the court that she could provide for Madi otherwise she would be forced to give her up to her alcoholic abusive father.

She lived in some pretty crappy places, drove beat up vehicles while working a disgusting and humiliating job.
All the while being the best mother for Madi.
Cut her slack.
Working under the table for cash payments was the only way to get out of poverty and to move to Montana to attend college for four years.
How can anyone judge someone willing to commit fraud if they do it to not only provide for an innocent child but to also get on a straighter path forward??

Fraud is fraud.
Alex was living off of government handouts yet at the same time advertising for housecleaning jobs for CASH ONLY.

Taxpayers expense.
Surprised Netflix is showing this series.

Are you this worried about corporate welfare and billionaires not paying taxes?

I’m a social worker and this show is one of the best examples I’ve seen of how people struggle with poverty. The very beginning when she points out that it’s ridiculous she needs to prove she has a job to get daycare but can’t get a job without one. The system just sets people up that it makes nearly impossible to get ahead.

^^she lost her home to mold and it would take a long time to get another one.

^^car was hit

^^mom institutionalized

^^ mom has no back up plan

No happiness ever lasts.

I’m fairly new to the shoe. I’m almost done with episode 7.

First, I think it’s great…but…

1. While I generally like Andie (mom) in this role, that’s unusual. I typically think she’s a horrible actress. I don’t like how she is a kook all the time except during the casino confrontation when she was lucid and seemingly sober (which she wasn’t). Then she went right back to herself moments later.

2. I don’t like how Alex always nods her head. A lot of newer actors do this and it’s annoying.

3. I don’t like how Alex has no long(er) lived happy moments. The tinder date ended poorly. The bday party ended poorly. The rich lady confiding in her ended. The rental from the couple where she gardened ended. We get it. Her life is really hard. But she could have some happiness, even small.

4. The whole court thing made zero sense. “Ex parte” means without one party there. They kept calling it an ex parte hearing.

Agree that Andie MacDowell stole the show. She should win an award.