5 ms·

No, not at all. Just don't be really poor. They had 12 kids in 15 years, so 0.8 kids per year. A new Toyota Yaris Sedan is 16,000 MSRP. So paying sticker price

by burfog 7y ago

No, not at all. Just don't be really poor. They had 12 kids in 15 years, so 0.8 kids per year. A new Toyota Yaris Sedan is 16,000 MSRP. So paying sticker price on a new Toyota, you'll average 12,800 per year. That is nothing compared to the cost of food, which will be about $48,000 per year. With careful shopping you might cut the food cost in half, but it is still about double the cost of the cars. The cars are not the difficulty here.

faitswulff 7y ago
In America, at least, 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 expense, let alone buy 12 cars in 15 years.
- burfog 7y ago
  Yes, there are people who really can't afford $400, but... For much of that 40%, this is sort of a choice. They can't budget. Some of those 40% are even very highly paid, earning well over $100,000 per year. We don't teach home economics much anymore. The 40th percentile household income is $50,000 in the USA. That $400 is about 2 work days of income. It is less than 1% of yearly income. Clearly, some people immediately blow their whole paycheck. With proper budgeting, it seems likely that a person at the 40th percentile could actually afford all those cars. It'd be a quarter of their income. What they could not afford would be food. I suppose there is help though. Perhaps WIC or something would make things possible.
  - faitswulff 7y ago
    > Perhaps WIC or something would make things possible This comment, excuse me, shows your ignorance. "Being poor is knowing exactly how much everything costs." - John Scalzi [1] Strongly recommend reading more about this. 40% of the country being poor is no longer an "individual choice," it's a systemic problem. Furthermore, being poor disadvantages you to make long term choices. When you can only afford the $5 boots that break every month instead of the $100 boots that last for years, you end up spending a lot more just to stay in place. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15041758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15041758
    - burfog 7y ago
      Earning $50,000 per year is not poor. You can live fine on that. You can even buy all those cars on that. You can buy a house on that. What you can't do is feed 12 children on that. Also, don't even think about San Francisco or Manhattan. I know this because I've checked the numbers. I haven't needed to check WIC, so I don't know that one, but I do know that it costs about $48,000 to feed a family with 12 kids. That is for a mid-range supermarket with modest bargain hunting. One could try harder, really reducing the food quality, but it won't be cheap. It isn't at all normal for any income segment of the population to have 12 kids, and arguably that is a choice. Putting huge families aside, it is clear that 40% being "poor" is a choice. They aren't all poor. Most of them just can't budget well.
      - faitswulff 7y ago
        Are you really saying that a family should spend 96% of their income on food alone and also buy each of those children a car? That seems incredibly detached from a reality of emergency room visits, unexpected damages to house or vehicles, and childcare / educational expenses. Regardless, it's obvious from the article that the family in question is from a wealthy family.
        burfog 7y ago
        Of course not: "nothing compared to the cost of food [...] still about double the cost of the cars. The cars are not the difficulty here." "What they could not afford would be food." "What you can't do is feed 12 children on that." However they could actually buy the cars. Relative to food, cars are cheap. There is often help available for food though, so maybe a family of 12 could actually get by at the 40th percentile income. More realistically, a family with 4 children can do just fine. That would be $12,000 on food using my rate, although careful shopping might cut that in half. THIS IS NOT POVERTY. Poverty is more like that person who posted to Hacker News last week that they lived on $20,000 per year, in Manhattan of all places, sharing a kitchen and bathroom with other people. Well, they did have a roof and a place in a fancy area, so that is the better end of poverty. Here, a typical budget (from smartasset.com) for the 40th percentile in my part of the USA, both per-year and per-month, with 2 adults and 3 kids: 9192 766 child care 3948 329 medical 11580 965 housing 5952 496 food 6960 580 transportation 2724 227 other 3024 252 savings 6480 540 taxes It's a bit high for housing due to me being in a fancy beach town with a median house price of $250,000. The median house price is $150,000 in the adjacent town, 4 to 6 miles from the beach. According to zillow.com that would be about $904 per month, or $10,848 per year. This is a mortgage, including taxes and PMI and other insurance. It'll be a stand-alone 3-bedroom house with a yard. For those who are serious about a family, the mother usually stays home. That cuts income, but it also sets the child care expenses to zero. Numerous benefits become available and the taxes go way down. Adding in the 4th kid is quite possible. Nobody will need to starve. I just checked Texas, and this example family would qualify for $10872 each year in SNAP food benefits. Heck, that is a profit! More than $400 can be saved every month, so being unable to cover that kind of expense is a choice. The family from the article is unlikely to be wealthy. He was a skilled engineer for a government contractor. I'll guess that there was a salary of about $150,000 to $250,000 in today's dollars. That is below the typical Hacker News standard of Facebook, Google, Netflix, Amazon, etc.

by burfog 7y ago

faitswulff 7y ago

In America, at least, 40% of Americans can't cover a $400 expense, let alone buy 12 cars in 15 years.

burfog 7y ago
Yes, there are people who really can't afford $400, but... For much of that 40%, this is sort of a choice. They can't budget. Some of those 40% are even very highly paid, earning well over $100,000 per year. We don't teach home economics much anymore. The 40th percentile household income is $50,000 in the USA. That $400 is about 2 work days of income. It is less than 1% of yearly income. Clearly, some people immediately blow their whole paycheck. With proper budgeting, it seems likely that a person at the 40th percentile could actually afford all those cars. It'd be a quarter of their income. What they could not afford would be food. I suppose there is help though. Perhaps WIC or something would make things possible.
- faitswulff 7y ago
  > Perhaps WIC or something would make things possible This comment, excuse me, shows your ignorance. "Being poor is knowing exactly how much everything costs." - John Scalzi [1] Strongly recommend reading more about this. 40% of the country being poor is no longer an "individual choice," it's a systemic problem. Furthermore, being poor disadvantages you to make long term choices. When you can only afford the $5 boots that break every month instead of the $100 boots that last for years, you end up spending a lot more just to stay in place. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15041758 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15041758
  - burfog 7y ago
    Earning $50,000 per year is not poor. You can live fine on that. You can even buy all those cars on that. You can buy a house on that. What you can't do is feed 12 children on that. Also, don't even think about San Francisco or Manhattan. I know this because I've checked the numbers. I haven't needed to check WIC, so I don't know that one, but I do know that it costs about $48,000 to feed a family with 12 kids. That is for a mid-range supermarket with modest bargain hunting. One could try harder, really reducing the food quality, but it won't be cheap. It isn't at all normal for any income segment of the population to have 12 kids, and arguably that is a choice. Putting huge families aside, it is clear that 40% being "poor" is a choice. They aren't all poor. Most of them just can't budget well.
    - faitswulff 7y ago
      Are you really saying that a family should spend 96% of their income on food alone and also buy each of those children a car? That seems incredibly detached from a reality of emergency room visits, unexpected damages to house or vehicles, and childcare / educational expenses. Regardless, it's obvious from the article that the family in question is from a wealthy family.
      - burfog 7y ago
        Of course not: "nothing compared to the cost of food [...] still about double the cost of the cars. The cars are not the difficulty here." "What they could not afford would be food." "What you can't do is feed 12 children on that." However they could actually buy the cars. Relative to food, cars are cheap. There is often help available for food though, so maybe a family of 12 could actually get by at the 40th percentile income. More realistically, a family with 4 children can do just fine. That would be $12,000 on food using my rate, although careful shopping might cut that in half. THIS IS NOT POVERTY. Poverty is more like that person who posted to Hacker News last week that they lived on $20,000 per year, in Manhattan of all places, sharing a kitchen and bathroom with other people. Well, they did have a roof and a place in a fancy area, so that is the better end of poverty. Here, a typical budget (from smartasset.com) for the 40th percentile in my part of the USA, both per-year and per-month, with 2 adults and 3 kids: 9192 766 child care 3948 329 medical 11580 965 housing 5952 496 food 6960 580 transportation 2724 227 other 3024 252 savings 6480 540 taxes It's a bit high for housing due to me being in a fancy beach town with a median house price of $250,000. The median house price is $150,000 in the adjacent town, 4 to 6 miles from the beach. According to zillow.com that would be about $904 per month, or $10,848 per year. This is a mortgage, including taxes and PMI and other insurance. It'll be a stand-alone 3-bedroom house with a yard. For those who are serious about a family, the mother usually stays home. That cuts income, but it also sets the child care expenses to zero. Numerous benefits become available and the taxes go way down. Adding in the 4th kid is quite possible. Nobody will need to starve. I just checked Texas, and this example family would qualify for $10872 each year in SNAP food benefits. Heck, that is a profit! More than $400 can be saved every month, so being unable to cover that kind of expense is a choice. The family from the article is unlikely to be wealthy. He was a skilled engineer for a government contractor. I'll guess that there was a salary of about $150,000 to $250,000 in today's dollars. That is below the typical Hacker News standard of Facebook, Google, Netflix, Amazon, etc.