- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Rent is like 50% of my income currently and I’m trapped because nowhere charges less for the same space and I don’t qualify for rentals without a guarantor that I no longer have. At this age, my parents were in their 3rd house on a single income with 3 kids.
The wealthy really fucked us over, hey. They’re scum for what they did.
They’re scum for what they are currently still doing, and must be stopped.
1000%. Preach it!
Don’t insult people over their nature. Money corrupts, especially over many generations. They just play a rigged game and have the edge to win. Time for some regulations. Social capitalism is the answer, fair taxes even on rich people. Prevent wealth hoarding over a certain point. Stop insulting people and get to three voting booth. Start telling real people to change their vote.
Spare us the civility horseshit. Their nature? The level of organized greed and cruelty that is being inflicted on the world is NOT natural. It is abnormal and it is evil. The “edge to win” means they had a rich white mommy and daddy who also had a rich white mommy and daddy.
And “some regulations” and “fair tax” aren’t going to fix shit. Social capitalism? What the holy fuck is that? The winning entry in an oxymoron contest? Fuck off liberal.
Acting humane is about keeping society off a slippery slope not about the billionaires. Keeping people in check is a States prerogative, acting humanely should be a societies first priority.
Being a raging lunatic killing everything and everyone you disagree with sounds a lot like the nazis but left leaning. ;)
An child rapist is also just dealing with their nature.
Putting them in a wood chipper is fair to them, we just need to regulate which children they are allowed to rape.
Punishment has to be about protection for the people and about rehabilitation of the individual. Don’t forget the pedophile has no choice in his proclivities. So getting him to make healthy safe choices is the goal and protecting children from him. Not killing him, but storing him safely is not about his wellbeing but about keeping the rest of society acting humanely. People here talk about basic income all the time. Not being humane is a slippery slope for society, and the cost of not entering it is very much worth it.
I wasn’t actually talking about child rape there. Capitalists will rape us and anyone who suggest we just need to regulate the conditions of the rape is fucking insane.
I do not consent.
They are also scum for what they are doing.
The wealthy do what the wealthy do, voters in their millions enable them.
Up to now you have believed in the existence of tyrants. Well, you were mistaken. There are only slaves. Where none obeys, none commands. – Anselme Bellagarrigue
Same and I live in what would be considered a rural state. We don’t have any big cities and a studio apartment would cost me about $1500 a month about 50 miles outside our biggest city and $1800+ within 50 miles of Portland Maine which is our biggest city. This shit is out of control. Our wages are more in line with a rural state, but our rent prices are near what you’d expect in a bigger city.
that’s because your real estate is bought up by people like me with 150K salaries who think your 1800 rent is dirt cheap. In Boston a studio is over 3K now.
i know people who moved to Maine to find cheaper housing because none is available in Boston area. and the people who live in Boston fight any/all development to expand the housing supply, including renters. like i have friends who rent, who pay 3K a month, and then go to town meetings to fight new housing developments, and then complain went there rent goes up another 10%
Exactly, I make a fraction of what you make and I could never afford to buy a house anywhere. Back when I first started renting 16 years ago, my friend and I rented a 2 bedroom place for $450 a month and now a studio is 4 times that in rural states.
The owner of the place I currently rent has surprised us with a Christmas notice that she’s selling the place and we have to leave by April. We can’t afford anywhere near here so we’ll have to move very far north and our commutes will at least double. Maybe triple. Locals are getting forced out of places they’ve lived their whole lives. This shit is fucked up. People are too damn greedy and selfish.
“a family of four needs $136,500 a year”
I could see that, more likely in more expensive areas. You aren’t getting anywhere in New York or San Francisco on $140K.
in New York or San Francisco on $140K.
A month?
plenty of people live in these cities on less than 140K and are doing fine.
I live in Boston and I do great and a few years ago I was only making 70K.
I’m not sure what are the living standards in Boston or even if those exist, but good for you.
Boston scares and mystifies me and I know nothing of your bizarre customs.
it’s a city with a lot of money. but nobody shows it off the way they do in nyc/la. it’s very ‘modest’.
people with 50million in the bank drive a 30K prius and wear eddie bauer and agonizing over their property tax going up $500 as if it will bankrupt them.
you can still live in those areas with that income lol, unless you buying multimillionaire penthouses.
I mean, we’re poor but we make less than half that just outside San Francisco. Honestly we’re doing okay. We don’t get any of the luxuries my parents had at our age, but we have smartphones so we can never get away from anything!
How much is your rent, if it’s not too much to ask?
we live with family, maintain the property and shit. that’s our rent. given our locale it comes out to about 15k/yr net we’re saving.
deleted by creator
i’m disabled. my medical care costs more than rent would. should i have included that too?
Yes. That seems pretty relevant to your financial story.
The poverty line is for the nation overall. Using some of the highest cost of living areas to set it doesn’t make sense. Why would you say a family making considerably more than most of their peers is poor because they would struggle to afford living somewhere else entirely?
It should be localized. it cuts both ways. Why would we say a family struggling to make ends meet is not really poor because they could live comfortably on that salary in a different region?
I highly recommend that you read the actual substack article.
The claim is based around how the original poverty line was the cost of food multiplied by 3. This assumes that food is 33% of your spending and that your other expenses are approximately the other 67%.
The $140k value is based around the fact that the ratio has shifted immensely. Food is cheap in the US relative to the other goods/services required to live in society. If you take the new ratio and extrapolate it out, the multiplier is over 10x the cost of food to account for the other components of spending.
Even if you want to debate the actual number itself. The poverty line is laughable and anyone living at it is legitimately destitute, not just in “casual poverty”
The issue is… how do you accurately determine the poverty line without just taking some number and multiplying it. Because not only do costs vary by location, so does their ratio. So you really need a set of costs per location added together, then averaged based on the density of population in the area the costs were pulled from. And of course at that point the finaly number is probably true nowhere. So what is the use of it anyway. Each specific area needs it’s own poverty line. The smaller the area the more useful and accurate the number will be. But you can’t just say “fine, we will do it by zipcode”. Because zipcodes have significant variation of sizes. It needs to be done intelligently and constantly as things shift. So in the end, there simply is no reasonably accurate poverty line unless a human calculates it for a specific address.
Take how much it takes for a living wage in the most expensive part of the country.
And that’s it. If you try to shrink wrap it down to where it’s bare subsistence anywhere, you trap people in places where everyone with the means leaves. Sure, the cost of living is low, but there’s no jobs because everyone with money left. So it becomes impossible to get by, let alone amass the funds needed to relocate.
I guess it depends what you plan to use the number for. If you plan to set the min wage on it, you will destroy small businesses in poorer areas, and probably cause the chains to leave those same areas.
This is already happening, but it’s better to keep paying the poor less under all circumstances as far as republicans and centrist democrats are concerned.
Can’t create a permanent subclass of flyover morlocks if you pay them like the blue state eloi.
No jobs will mean no people eventually. That will solve poverty.
Same plan for make America healthy again. Kill off the ones who can’t afford to be healthy.
The poverty line is about 32K for a family of four, and 15K for a single person.
fed minimum wage full time is a income of 15K per year. this of course, varies by state, w/ CA min wage becoming 36K a year.
I truly feel for the people that are in that boat…
Which is nuts, because a two bedroom (hope your kids are the same gender) place is gonna be 24k of that. So 8k left over for insurance (car, life, home, and medical) food, childcare, all other bills, taxes, Christmas, school supplies, children’s clothes and shoes. It’s way below the number that would cover half of that.
Plus in all too many places you’re practically forced to buy a car
ISTG there are more commenters up in here who obviously didn’t read the article than ones who did.
Like always, how far your money goes depends on multiple factors. 140k in the Midwest alone means you’re living comfortably. Like all bills paid off, a lot of extra money for leisure, etc.
If you have a family and live in the bay area, then it’s not that much. I personally wouldn’t put it at poverty, but it’d be somewhat close to being paycheck to paycheck (assuming you still need to pay mortgage and whatnot)
That doesn’t even buy a single politician.
I thought I heard Sam Bankman-Fried say he was surprised at how little it cost, it was like $50k or something.
State level politicians are like $5k-$10k. Shockingly cheap but you do need to buy most of the set.
I live alone in a moderately low cost of living area making about 52k take home. With no extenuating expenses related to health I can put away a hundred or two a month after rent, gas, utilities, food and car maintenance (I drive and fix old shit myself rather than make a car payment). But that is literally all I can do. If I had a second person to support or was in any other area I’d be underwater quick.
It’s mentioned in the substack article that for a single individual his calculations place the poverty line around 50k, while 140k is for a family.
yeah but is your income going to go up? or are you like 50 and it’s maxxed out?
context is everything. if you’re 25 and your salary will double in 5-10 years your situation isn’t bad.
blows my mind in my city how many 22-25 year olds scream how poor they are when they are just starting out their lives and think their 50-60K wage is ‘poverty’ when it will be 100K in 5 years.
I get what you’re saying but some people 22-25 are still hoping to start a family or buy a house.
who? the ultra religious/conservative types?
22-25 is way too young to be doing either of those things.
Yes. The people saying no are no longer temporarily embarrassed millionaires but temporarily embarrassed middle class. Have or have not, and 140k is have not given inflation, healthcare, education, food, rent/mortgage, energy etc.
140K is more 85% of the USA population.
It’s upper middle class. it’s about 5 grand a month in disposable income. assuming a 1/3 tax rate and 3K in rent/mortage
it’s also what I make, and yeah i have that much disposable income per month.
This is highly dependant on where you live, as has been said before.
No.
If $140,000 is the poverty line can I please make poverty wages?
This calculation is for a family of four. Please read more than the headline and comments.
If my wife and I both made 70k I think we could comfortably raise 2 kids.
As is? We would need some serious help.
No obviously not.
This calculation is for a family of four. Please read more than the headline and comments.
Well shit thats a little Less than 3x what I make lol. 💀💀💀💀
uh huh, thank you vice and mr wallstreet substack poster for spreading such awareness, but where does that leave people in actual poverty?
Uh… right where they are? The American welfare state is insufficient across the board, so it needs to be strengthened across the board, and employers across the board should be forced to pay living wages.
deleted by creator
Well he addresses that, the lowest level gets some assistance. Once you reach a certain income to climb out you lose the assistance and effectively are back in poverty again.
vast majority people in actual poverty spend their lifetime in poverty. about 10% make it out, mostly via education for gifted kids.
The substack is well worth the read.
Math that a lot of us educated poverty-livers have done before. Its refreshing to see one of the econ-bros validate it.
The answer is NO, it’s not. However, to be completely fair, I’ve bookmarked the “supporting materials” to give it a review later when I have a little more time.
As someone who grew up in a family actually straggling the poverty line, there’s simply 0% chance that any family anywhere in this country is living in poverty with that kind of income. It’s well above what most households are bringing in, and while there may be a limited subset of circumstances where that money isn’t sufficient, that’s not what poverty is.
And I read through some of the comments in this thread – Assuming they’ve come from real humans not pushing an agenda, it makes me ashamed to be associated with those people.
there’s simply 0% chance that any family anywhere in this country is living in poverty with that kind of income.
The original Substack addresses this point, but the short of it is: Most income gains from 35k to 100k are cancelled out by a loss of government benefits, so there’s a lot less difference between these than you’d expect. You only start making real gains starting from 100k. Now a family making 100k will have expendable income that’s true, but the vast majority of its income will still go towards essentials so it’s still one emergency away from insolvency.
Edit: This means that a family with two incomes and two young children making 50k is getting a market price equivalent of 50k in government benefits, so we can crudely approximate families straddling the poverty line as making 100k net. In that case the difference between the effective official poverty line and the proposed poverty line is a large but realistic 40%.
Unfortunately, no it doesn’t address that point. It’s basically, if you pervert the definition from a century ago and interpret it in one specific way for a way of life that’s hardly anywhere close to the standard/average, then you can maybe make a clickbait case for a super high income that drives engagement. Think of the click through and comments!
So what you’re saying is, if you’re not on the brink of starvation and/or homelessness you’re not poor?
Like, someone who hasn’t been able to afford vacations or any other luxury, is one medical issue or car issue away from homelessness, and doesn’t go to the doctor for routine/preventative stuff because it’s too expensive, isn’t poor. So long as they pay rent on time and eat three meals a day.
No, what I’m saying is $140,000 is not the new poverty line for Americans.
dude, everyone is one medical issue away from bankrupcy. if i got cancer i’d go bankrupt.
yes, as long as you pay rent, have heat, and other necessities you’re not poor in in poverty.
i don’t know what your standard is, but i grew up with a roof over my head, food in my belly, and zero luxuries. we were considered middle class. not poor. our houses were old and crappy, and our cars were used based models. the only ‘luxury’ we had was cable tv.
the issue is now ‘middle class’ seems to mean ‘upper middle class’ as if if you can’t lve in the best towns, with teh best schools, and travel to europe with your family every year, you are ‘poor’. where i live people lve in posh expensive years, have the $5000 in electronics or more, are leasing new model cars, and traveling abroad 2-3x a year and claim they are ‘in poverty’. because their salary is ‘only’ 100K.
It’s not the line between being poor or not, it’s the poverty line and what you’re describing would be considered poverty.
What? You’re not making any sense.
This makes way more sense. Thanks for the explanation.
You really should read the article before commenting. I know you are not alone in this thread don’t feel singled out, but they make a very good point.
and while there may be a limited subset of circumstances where that money isn’t sufficient, that’s not what poverty is.
bingo. where i live everyone thinks they are in ‘poverty’ because they can’t afford luxuries like expensive cars, expensive vacations, and luxury housing. they are not anywhere near true poverty. but since most grew up wealthy/middle class, they think they are.
as someone who grew up lower-class, it blows my mind how poor most people are with money, and how they blame society rather than their own budgeting skills. i know people who make 40K a year who spend 10K a year traveling, and then cry poor.
