4 ms·

Wow, everything in this thread is "those evil rich people, fleecing the poor." Quite aside from the fact that the target audience of this site can expect to ma

Wow, everything in this thread is "those evil rich people, fleecing the poor." Quite aside from the fact that the target audience of this site can expect to make around 2X the median income of the US--meaning that we are those evil rich people--surely the problem isn't this one-sided. The poverty rate in the US is about 13% [1]; we would expect those people to not have any savings. That leaves about 33% unaccounted for. It looks like 42% of workers in the US make less than $15/hr [2], which does fit the figure fairly close. However, some of those are teenagers, so they don't count as they aren't living on their own. I'd like to see some analysis of spending. How many people don't have any savings because they aren't spending wisely. This girl [3] discovered that she could actually save for a deposit for a house in London, despite making under £40k (about $53k). That's less than the median US income and presumably doesn't go all that for in London. She was simply spending a lot of money on food, drinks, and specialty coffee. [1] https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-united-states https://poverty.ucdavis.edu/faq/what-current-poverty-rate-un... [2] http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/who-makes-15-per-hour/ http://fortune.com/2015/04/13/who-makes-15-per-hour/ [3] https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-really-save-for-a-deposit-by-ditching-coffee-and-avocado-toast-i-tried-to-find-out https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/jan/29/can-you-really...

zaksoup 8y ago
I would push back on this bit about teenagers: > so they don't count as they aren't living on their own. I think it's a significant assumption to make that parents would be able/willing to cover a random $400 expense. The study did not specify a specific type of emergency expenditure, just that it was unexpected. I can fully imagine a scenario where parents would cover hospital visits for a bad case of the flu, but not cover an abortion, or repairs to a car from an accident where the child was at fault. The latter two examples still seem like fair 'unexpected expenses' for the child dependent making < $15/hour
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  I think this was a survey about households though, so not clear if teenagers living at home would count.
- prewett 8y ago
  This is kind of tangential, but I find it a sad commentary on our society when an abortion is considered a "fair unexpected expense" of a teenager. Abortion is 100% avoidable [1]. And regardless of your view on women's rights, etc. the fact is that a living human is killed in an abortion. "Don't have sex until you are okay with the possibility of getting pregnant" apparently isn't very popular, but the situation is entirely preventable. (I'm not trying to push an agenda here, just reacting.) [1] Unless rape is involved, but that isn't the normal case. (Abortions because rape are 1%, according to http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.ht.... Disclaimer: I scanned the link for figures, I didn't try to figure out if it is pro- or anti- abortion.)
  - zaksoup 8y ago
    You’re right, this is tangential, and frustratingly derailing from the point I was making. > the fact is that a living human is killed in an abortion. This is absolutely the talking point of somebody pushing an agenda and represnting it here as a simple “fact” is specious at best.
mayniac 8y ago
>Quite aside from the fact that the target audience of this site can expect to make around 2X the median income of the US--meaning that we are those evil rich people--surely the problem isn't this one-sided. Not debating this fact, however cost of living makes a huge difference. 2x the median income doesn't mean much if everyone lives in big cities where the cost of living is 2x the median also. I feel like this is a point that has been ignored in this thread by a lot of people. Also one note on one of your sources: the guardian article mentions she's living in an ex-council house with a flatmate. I've lived in an ex-council flat before in London, and honestly it is not for everyone. There was zero insulation so even with the heating on full, winter was unbearable. Constant electrical problems. Decent chance of getting mugged while taking out the trash. Mould in various places that never got dealt with. I know all ex-council flats aren't like this, but are we entirely comfortable with saying that above-average earning professionals in metropolitan cities should have to live with flatmates, often strangers, for up to ten years, often in increasingly poor conditions, while significantly cutting back on their quality of life, to be able to possibly afford a small flat likely an hour away from where they will work? It's easy to tell people to cut back on going to the pub or eating out, it's much harder to do when you're living in a mouldy shoebox and need an occasional break from misery, especially when you have friends that will still go out without you and adverts telling you to buy avocado on toast everywhere you go.
- prewett 8y ago
  I agree with you about cost of living. But my point was, that someone living on what I would consider to be an untenable income for London is actually able to save up for a down-payment on a house--in London! Sure, I understand the desire to have a "break from misery," but my point is that the conclusion she came to was that her lack of savings was entirely her decision. If someone living in ex-council houses (as an American, those words don't mean anything to me, so thanks for your description) has the financial ability to save up for a down payment, I think a lot of people in the U.S. do, too. Sure, it takes some self-sacrifice and discipline. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm just saying that I don't think we should be blaming the evil rich people for people's lack of savings without having a look at some personal responsibility.
49531 8y ago
The problem is one-sided, it's a trope to blame poor people for not being frugal enough when lower income wages have stagnated over the last 40 years. The wealthy in America are relieved of guilt if it's not their fault poor people are poor. We've systematically gutted social services for the poor while giving tax breaks and subsidies to the rich, then we blame the poor for buying consumer goods (which we market to them and need them to buy) instead of saving their income.
- m0rose 8y ago
  So it's better for the poor to blame the rich and be relieved of the guilt of being poor? It's not one-sided, and to say it is allows for a victim mentality that is harmful to anyone reading this and not thinking critically. I acknowledge that there are myriad reasons for becoming poor. Some people have one horrible tragedy after another heaped upon them to the point where they are destitute, and to those people we need to lend our aid and sincerest sympathy. There are others, however, who are poor because they spend their money foolishly, often times in a unconscious attempt to assuage feelings of depression, anxiety, or lack of agency. These people also deserve our sympathy, but they will never escape their issues without actually realizing they have a problem and seeking help. I fear that comments like this enable those people by re-enforcing their belief that it's a one-sided issue that they have no control over, and to them you're doing a grave disservice.
  - 49531 8y ago
    > relieved of the guilt of being poor That kind of sums it up right there. Most wealthy people in this country didn't become wealthy because they were able to save money while working for $15/hr. You can't save your way out of poverty, the poor don't want your sympathy, they want dignity. They want a living wage, a pension, and healthcare. We can afford to give it to them, we're just too focused on making more billionaires.

zaksoup 8y ago

I would push back on this bit about teenagers: > so they don't count as they aren't living on their own. I think it's a significant assumption to make that parents would be able/willing to cover a random $400 expense. The study did not specify a specific type of emergency expenditure, just that it was unexpected. I can fully imagine a scenario where parents would cover hospital visits for a bad case of the flu, but not cover an abortion, or repairs to a car from an accident where the child was at fault. The latter two examples still seem like fair 'unexpected expenses' for the child dependent making < $15/hour

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
I think this was a survey about households though, so not clear if teenagers living at home would count.
prewett 8y ago
This is kind of tangential, but I find it a sad commentary on our society when an abortion is considered a "fair unexpected expense" of a teenager. Abortion is 100% avoidable [1]. And regardless of your view on women's rights, etc. the fact is that a living human is killed in an abortion. "Don't have sex until you are okay with the possibility of getting pregnant" apparently isn't very popular, but the situation is entirely preventable. (I'm not trying to push an agenda here, just reacting.) [1] Unless rape is involved, but that isn't the normal case. (Abortions because rape are 1%, according to http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.ht.... Disclaimer: I scanned the link for figures, I didn't try to figure out if it is pro- or anti- abortion.)
- zaksoup 8y ago
  You’re right, this is tangential, and frustratingly derailing from the point I was making. > the fact is that a living human is killed in an abortion. This is absolutely the talking point of somebody pushing an agenda and represnting it here as a simple “fact” is specious at best.

mayniac 8y ago

>Quite aside from the fact that the target audience of this site can expect to make around 2X the median income of the US--meaning that we are those evil rich people--surely the problem isn't this one-sided. Not debating this fact, however cost of living makes a huge difference. 2x the median income doesn't mean much if everyone lives in big cities where the cost of living is 2x the median also. I feel like this is a point that has been ignored in this thread by a lot of people. Also one note on one of your sources: the guardian article mentions she's living in an ex-council house with a flatmate. I've lived in an ex-council flat before in London, and honestly it is not for everyone. There was zero insulation so even with the heating on full, winter was unbearable. Constant electrical problems. Decent chance of getting mugged while taking out the trash. Mould in various places that never got dealt with. I know all ex-council flats aren't like this, but are we entirely comfortable with saying that above-average earning professionals in metropolitan cities should have to live with flatmates, often strangers, for up to ten years, often in increasingly poor conditions, while significantly cutting back on their quality of life, to be able to possibly afford a small flat likely an hour away from where they will work? It's easy to tell people to cut back on going to the pub or eating out, it's much harder to do when you're living in a mouldy shoebox and need an occasional break from misery, especially when you have friends that will still go out without you and adverts telling you to buy avocado on toast everywhere you go.

prewett 8y ago
I agree with you about cost of living. But my point was, that someone living on what I would consider to be an untenable income for London is actually able to save up for a down-payment on a house--in London! Sure, I understand the desire to have a "break from misery," but my point is that the conclusion she came to was that her lack of savings was entirely her decision. If someone living in ex-council houses (as an American, those words don't mean anything to me, so thanks for your description) has the financial ability to save up for a down payment, I think a lot of people in the U.S. do, too. Sure, it takes some self-sacrifice and discipline. I'm not saying it's easy. I'm just saying that I don't think we should be blaming the evil rich people for people's lack of savings without having a look at some personal responsibility.

49531 8y ago

The problem is one-sided, it's a trope to blame poor people for not being frugal enough when lower income wages have stagnated over the last 40 years. The wealthy in America are relieved of guilt if it's not their fault poor people are poor. We've systematically gutted social services for the poor while giving tax breaks and subsidies to the rich, then we blame the poor for buying consumer goods (which we market to them and need them to buy) instead of saving their income.

m0rose 8y ago
So it's better for the poor to blame the rich and be relieved of the guilt of being poor? It's not one-sided, and to say it is allows for a victim mentality that is harmful to anyone reading this and not thinking critically. I acknowledge that there are myriad reasons for becoming poor. Some people have one horrible tragedy after another heaped upon them to the point where they are destitute, and to those people we need to lend our aid and sincerest sympathy. There are others, however, who are poor because they spend their money foolishly, often times in a unconscious attempt to assuage feelings of depression, anxiety, or lack of agency. These people also deserve our sympathy, but they will never escape their issues without actually realizing they have a problem and seeking help. I fear that comments like this enable those people by re-enforcing their belief that it's a one-sided issue that they have no control over, and to them you're doing a grave disservice.
- 49531 8y ago
  > relieved of the guilt of being poor That kind of sums it up right there. Most wealthy people in this country didn't become wealthy because they were able to save money while working for $15/hr. You can't save your way out of poverty, the poor don't want your sympathy, they want dignity. They want a living wage, a pension, and healthcare. We can afford to give it to them, we're just too focused on making more billionaires.