5 ms·

"...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'

by _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.
    - _pius 16y ago
      It occurs to me that you may not know what a strawman is. It's not attacking a strawman if I'm rebutting a direct quotation from you.
      - zeteo 16y ago
        My quotation was "a single person on full-time minimum wage can easily feed and house a family of four". This you confirmed, and it says nothing about other desirable expenses, such as savings, nice clothing and health insurance. The straw man you made out of it is "I was just debunking the idea that a family of four can live "easily" on a single minimum wage income". That's BS, my friend.
zeteo 16y ago
Either you can't read and understand an argument, or you haven't paid attention to the context and the point I was making. I never claimed you're going to live a happy and fulfilling life on minimum wage, that's just a straw man that you chose to put up. Engaging in such "tactics" for a couple of karma points is BS at best and dishonest at worst. The grand-parent claim for my post is "a single person income is not enough to feed a family of four in plenty of places". (By "feed" most people understand food and housing, not insurance, savings and unforeseen expenses.) My point, which you didn't bother to even read completely before coming here and yelling slogans, was that _even on minimum wage_ one person can pay for housing and food for a family of four (and you have yourself proven this point even for a relatively expensive location such as DC); therefore, _on average wage_, it's possible to do OK with such an arrangement (assuming one person to stay at home and cook). Since financially it works out for the _average_ family, it's social norms that cause the typical situation to be different. You should really work on your reading comprehension.
- _pius 16y ago
  I never claimed you're going to live a happy and fulfilling life on minimum wage, that's just a straw man that you chose to put up. Actually, I didn't claim you said that. I simply quoted you saying that "one can easily feed and house a family of four" on a minimum wage income. That's an actual statement you made and I rebutted ... I'm looking at those exact words from you on the screen right now. So where's the strawman? Or the lack of reading comprehension? Or are you actually claiming that you didn't say it?
  - zeteo 16y ago
    Your post, which I quote below, shows that in DC, on minimum wage, you can cover rent, utilities and bus fare for a family of four, and still have about $200 a month left for food. It's exactly my claim, plus I claim that the said $200 are enough to buy ingredients if you cook at home. Is it a great life? No. But it would be OK if you had an _average_ salary for the working person instead. If the person staying at home cooked, did groceries and spent time with the kids, those kids would probably have an even better life than one based on the XBox and microwave dinners. "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?"

by _pius 16y ago

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.
  - _pius 16y ago
    It occurs to me that you may not know what a strawman is. It's not attacking a strawman if I'm rebutting a direct quotation from you.
    - zeteo 16y ago
      My quotation was "a single person on full-time minimum wage can easily feed and house a family of four". This you confirmed, and it says nothing about other desirable expenses, such as savings, nice clothing and health insurance. The straw man you made out of it is "I was just debunking the idea that a family of four can live "easily" on a single minimum wage income". That's BS, my friend.

zeteo 16y ago

Either you can't read and understand an argument, or you haven't paid attention to the context and the point I was making. I never claimed you're going to live a happy and fulfilling life on minimum wage, that's just a straw man that you chose to put up. Engaging in such "tactics" for a couple of karma points is BS at best and dishonest at worst. The grand-parent claim for my post is "a single person income is not enough to feed a family of four in plenty of places". (By "feed" most people understand food and housing, not insurance, savings and unforeseen expenses.) My point, which you didn't bother to even read completely before coming here and yelling slogans, was that _even on minimum wage_ one person can pay for housing and food for a family of four (and you have yourself proven this point even for a relatively expensive location such as DC); therefore, _on average wage_, it's possible to do OK with such an arrangement (assuming one person to stay at home and cook). Since financially it works out for the _average_ family, it's social norms that cause the typical situation to be different. You should really work on your reading comprehension.

_pius 16y ago
I never claimed you're going to live a happy and fulfilling life on minimum wage, that's just a straw man that you chose to put up. Actually, I didn't claim you said that. I simply quoted you saying that "one can easily feed and house a family of four" on a minimum wage income. That's an actual statement you made and I rebutted ... I'm looking at those exact words from you on the screen right now. So where's the strawman? Or the lack of reading comprehension? Or are you actually claiming that you didn't say it?
- zeteo 16y ago
  Your post, which I quote below, shows that in DC, on minimum wage, you can cover rent, utilities and bus fare for a family of four, and still have about $200 a month left for food. It's exactly my claim, plus I claim that the said $200 are enough to buy ingredients if you cook at home. Is it a great life? No. But it would be OK if you had an _average_ salary for the working person instead. If the person staying at home cooked, did groceries and spent time with the kids, those kids would probably have an even better life than one based on the XBox and microwave dinners. "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?"