4 ms·

Yup. Food has never in history been cheaper as a proportion of total income. Especially if one person stays home to cook all meals, you can feed a family of fou

by zeteo 16y ago

Yup. Food has never in history been cheaper as a proportion of total income. Especially if one person stays home to cook all meals, you can feed a family of four with amazing food for $200 a month. Yes, you need to move out of Manhattan, and give up non-essentials, but a single person on full-time minimum wage can easily feed and house a family of four. Now if that person actually makes an _average_ wage, they can also afford a car, vacations, and college for the kids (they will get good financial aid at that income level). It's not the finances, it's the societal expectation.

_pius 16y ago
"...a single person on full-time minimum wage can easily feed and house a family of four." With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. It's not "societal expectations" that cause lots of gainfully employed people in the United States to be part of the working poor and hungry. As an example, the minimum wage in DC is $8.25, which yields $1320/month. The actual amount would be even lower after taxes, but let's even forget about that. About the absolute rock bottom price you'll pay for a room in this city is $600/month and that's assuming you're in a group living situation or a pretty bad neighborhood. Since a family of four will need two rooms to be even reasonably comfortable, maybe you luck out and grab a similarly crappy two-bedroom for $900/month. So now, you pay your rent, somehow keep your utilities hovering around $120/month (good luck with that) and you've got $300/month left. But wait, now you've got to get to work (and to the grocery store, etc.). Minimum bus fare in this city is $1.50. If you (and just you, not your kids or spouse) make a round trip every day plus, say, three extra trips a month, you will spend about $100. So now you've got $200 per month left to feed and clothe four people. But what about insurance? Savings? Unforeseen expenses? Doing something nice with your kids every now and again? At what point does any of this sound easy to you? If you want to be ignorant, that's your business, but please try not to peddle this BS to others who don't know any better. It's really irresponsible to further the notion that those less fortunate than us are having a difficult time making ends meet because of societal expectations. Ugh.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  You've got a great theory. And yet, it somehow does not fit the data. As of 2001 (the most recent data I've seen), more than 2/3 of poor households had at least 2 rooms/person, and only 6% were overcrowded. Just under 3/4 owned a car. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi... In the same year, 80% of the poor neither had nor were looking for a job, so bus fare is irrelevant to most of them. (This number hasn't changed much up to 2008, I haven't seen 2009 data.) http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2001.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2001.pdf It would seem that even most of the poor do not suffer the problems you describe. (I'd love more current numbers, anyone have them?)
  - _pius 16y ago
    It fits. The Heritage Foundation study assailed the Census Bureau's definition of poverty. My point made no comment about that; I was just debunking the idea that a family of four can live "easily" on a single minimum wage income, which is preposterous.
    - count 16y ago
      I agree - which is why MOST low-income families of four have a parent who works two minimum wage jobs, which pushes them just above the 'cant make it' threshold (hopefully).
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        These must be low income families above the poverty line. Below the poverty line, the typical household is supported by 800 hours of work/year (the 8 hour work week).
    - zeteo 16y ago
      " I was just debunking the idea that a family of four can live "easily" on a single minimum wage income, which is preposterous." An idea that you made up yourself to fight with, and was never supported by anyone else. If karma points were made of straw, you'd be the undisputed champion.

by zeteo 16y ago

_pius 16y ago

"...a single person on full-time minimum wage can easily feed and house a family of four." With all due respect, you don't know what you're talking about. It's not "societal expectations" that cause lots of gainfully employed people in the United States to be part of the working poor and hungry. As an example, the minimum wage in DC is $8.25, which yields $1320/month. The actual amount would be even lower after taxes, but let's even forget about that. About the absolute rock bottom price you'll pay for a room in this city is $600/month and that's assuming you're in a group living situation or a pretty bad neighborhood. Since a family of four will need two rooms to be even reasonably comfortable, maybe you luck out and grab a similarly crappy two-bedroom for $900/month. So now, you pay your rent, somehow keep your utilities hovering around $120/month (good luck with that) and you've got $300/month left. But wait, now you've got to get to work (and to the grocery store, etc.). Minimum bus fare in this city is $1.50. If you (and just you, not your kids or spouse) make a round trip every day plus, say, three extra trips a month, you will spend about $100. So now you've got $200 per month left to feed and clothe four people. But what about insurance? Savings? Unforeseen expenses? Doing something nice with your kids every now and again? At what point does any of this sound easy to you? If you want to be ignorant, that's your business, but please try not to peddle this BS to others who don't know any better. It's really irresponsible to further the notion that those less fortunate than us are having a difficult time making ends meet because of societal expectations. Ugh.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
You've got a great theory. And yet, it somehow does not fit the data. As of 2001 (the most recent data I've seen), more than 2/3 of poor households had at least 2 rooms/person, and only 6% were overcrowded. Just under 3/4 owned a car. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understanding-poverty-in-america http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/01/understandi... In the same year, 80% of the poor neither had nor were looking for a job, so bus fare is irrelevant to most of them. (This number hasn't changed much up to 2008, I haven't seen 2009 data.) http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2001.pdf http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2001.pdf It would seem that even most of the poor do not suffer the problems you describe. (I'd love more current numbers, anyone have them?)
- _pius 16y ago
  It fits. The Heritage Foundation study assailed the Census Bureau's definition of poverty. My point made no comment about that; I was just debunking the idea that a family of four can live "easily" on a single minimum wage income, which is preposterous.
  - count 16y ago
    I agree - which is why MOST low-income families of four have a parent who works two minimum wage jobs, which pushes them just above the 'cant make it' threshold (hopefully).
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      These must be low income families above the poverty line. Below the poverty line, the typical household is supported by 800 hours of work/year (the 8 hour work week).
  - zeteo 16y ago
    " I was just debunking the idea that a family of four can live "easily" on a single minimum wage income, which is preposterous." An idea that you made up yourself to fight with, and was never supported by anyone else. If karma points were made of straw, you'd be the undisputed champion.