4 ms·

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

by 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.
  - faitswulff 7y ago
    > The family from the article is unlikely to be wealthy. You argue that $50,000/yr is above the poverty line and therefore "not poor" and yet you also argue that $150,000 to $250,000 is not wealthy. You also go from estimating for 12 kids down to 3 kids. That is moving the goalposts. The author is wealthy, full stop. I think the biggest place where we do not see eye to eye is that for most of the world, including America, a salary of $150,000 to $250,000 per year is considered extremely wealthy.
    - burfog 7y ago
      Leaving some gaps and being rough... poor: below $25,000 (below an E-4 in the military) lower middle: that $50,000 middle: around $70,000 upper middle: $150,000 to $500,000 rich or wealthy: doesn't matter, could be $0 because assets, but probably over $1,000,000 The poor are way worse off than the 40th percentile family earning $50,000 per year, and the rich are way better off than the 95th percentile family earning $250,000 per year. None of those people in the 40th to 95th percentile range are either rich or poor. There are not many poor people in America, and there are very few rich people in America. Most people are in the middle, where they can get by just fine if they spend wisely and don't hit an abnormal disaster. It takes about $450,000 to be a 1%er, up at the 99th percentile. Even that isn't "rich" or "wealthy". It's just the high end of upper middle class. It is almost certain that the author was at the lower end of upper middle class. At the low end of the class we find senior engineering talent (like the author), family doctors, lousy lawyers, experienced actuaries, senior 747 pilots, and In-N-Out restaurant managers. At the high end of the class we find specialist doctors, competent lawyers, and many business owners. Nobody in this class is buying a Gulfstream private jet. Yes I did change from 12 kids to 4 kids, because 12 would be a little bit nuts on a lower-middle income. I think that 12 actually can be done. It gets tight. Skip the child care, add the $10,872 in SNAP food benefits, and I think it works. This includes home ownership. With that lower-middle income, fancy colleges are free. The kids can go to Ivy League schools.
      - faitswulff 7y ago
        That's nice, but the article is about 12 kids. Regardless, I'm done taking part in a bad faith argument.

by burfog 7y ago

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.
- faitswulff 7y ago
  > The family from the article is unlikely to be wealthy. You argue that $50,000/yr is above the poverty line and therefore "not poor" and yet you also argue that $150,000 to $250,000 is not wealthy. You also go from estimating for 12 kids down to 3 kids. That is moving the goalposts. The author is wealthy, full stop. I think the biggest place where we do not see eye to eye is that for most of the world, including America, a salary of $150,000 to $250,000 per year is considered extremely wealthy.
  - burfog 7y ago
    Leaving some gaps and being rough... poor: below $25,000 (below an E-4 in the military) lower middle: that $50,000 middle: around $70,000 upper middle: $150,000 to $500,000 rich or wealthy: doesn't matter, could be $0 because assets, but probably over $1,000,000 The poor are way worse off than the 40th percentile family earning $50,000 per year, and the rich are way better off than the 95th percentile family earning $250,000 per year. None of those people in the 40th to 95th percentile range are either rich or poor. There are not many poor people in America, and there are very few rich people in America. Most people are in the middle, where they can get by just fine if they spend wisely and don't hit an abnormal disaster. It takes about $450,000 to be a 1%er, up at the 99th percentile. Even that isn't "rich" or "wealthy". It's just the high end of upper middle class. It is almost certain that the author was at the lower end of upper middle class. At the low end of the class we find senior engineering talent (like the author), family doctors, lousy lawyers, experienced actuaries, senior 747 pilots, and In-N-Out restaurant managers. At the high end of the class we find specialist doctors, competent lawyers, and many business owners. Nobody in this class is buying a Gulfstream private jet. Yes I did change from 12 kids to 4 kids, because 12 would be a little bit nuts on a lower-middle income. I think that 12 actually can be done. It gets tight. Skip the child care, add the $10,872 in SNAP food benefits, and I think it works. This includes home ownership. With that lower-middle income, fancy colleges are free. The kids can go to Ivy League schools.
    - faitswulff 7y ago
      That's nice, but the article is about 12 kids. Regardless, I'm done taking part in a bad faith argument.