We’ve been looking at the poverty line all wrong for decades now…

RickyGQ

No nikkas!
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
18,081
Reputation
2,874
Daps
66,124
Reppin
NJ


Excellent read. Presents a powerful case that the basis of the poverty line established in the early 60s if applied today would mean the poverty line for a family of four isn’t $31,200 but more along the lines of $140,000.
 

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
111,892
Reputation
14,185
Daps
317,076
Reppin
NULL
Idk man. It explains why the election went the way it did to me. Everybody is struggling more than we (as a society) realize.
i just can't get behind that number. outside of major cities, in the vast majority of the country, a family of 4 living on 140k a year is not "impoverished" unless they spend money like absolute dikkheads :dead:

that's like 8 thousand a month after taxes. even if you have a 3k mortgage; that 5k doesn't leave you in "poverty"
 

RickyGQ

No nikkas!
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
18,081
Reputation
2,874
Daps
66,124
Reppin
NJ
i just can't get behind that number. outside of major cities, in the vast majority of the country, a family of 4 living on 140k a year is not "impoverished" unless they spend money like absolute dikkheads :dead:

that's like 8 thousand a month after taxes. even if you have a 3k mortgage; that 5k doesn't leave you in "poverty"
The breakdown used in the piece:
Using conservative, national-average data:

Childcare: $32,773

Housing: $23,267

Food: $14,717

Transportation: $14,828

Healthcare: $10,567

Other essentials: $21,857

Required net income: $118,009

Add federal, state, and FICA taxes of roughly $18,500, and you arrive at a required gross income of $136,500.
 

the cac mamba

Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
111,892
Reputation
14,185
Daps
317,076
Reppin
NULL
i guess i can understand "i can't afford a comfortable middle class lifestyle" being the poverty line. but you would have to come up with a new word for actual poverty :yeshrug:
 

The Bilingual Gringo

Tucked in to the socks
Supporter
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
4,959
Reputation
985
Daps
10,119
For 1963, that floor made sense. Housing was relatively cheap. A family could rent a decent apartment or buy a home on a single income, as we’ve discussed. Healthcare was provided by employers and cost relatively little (Blue Cross coverage averaged $10/month). Childcare didn’t really exist as a market—mothers stayed home, family helped, or neighbors (who likely had someone home) watched each other’s kids. Cars were affordable, if prone to breakdowns. With few luxury frills, the neighborhood kids in vo-tech could fix most problems when they did. College tuition could be covered with a summer job. Retirement meant a pension income, not a pile of 401(k) assets you had to fund yourself.

Taking away all of the racial problems from that time and currently, our striving for shareholder value really fukked up this country. We fukked up the bag. :francis:

I talk to younger coworkers about this type of stuff all of the time. And my wife and I had a depressing convo recently while seeing our youngest’s math teacher working a second job at Bath and Body Works.
 

RickyGQ

No nikkas!
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
18,081
Reputation
2,874
Daps
66,124
Reppin
NJ
Taking away all of the racial problems from that time and currently, our striving for shareholder value really fukked up this country. We fukked up the bag. :francis:

I talk to younger coworkers about this type of stuff all of the time. And my wife and I had a depressing convo recently while seeing our youngest’s math teacher working a second job at Bath and Body Works.
My wife took a part time job at a retail store out of boredom and for the discount, and was stunned to find out how much debt everyone was in who worked there. They make much less than us and probably have quadruple the debt.
 
Top